Quote:

Labor slams Liberal Tim Wilson's franking credit inquiry as 'unethical', says he must quit The Federal Opposition has accused Liberal MP Tim Wilson of unethical behaviour and called on him to resign as the head of a parliamentary committee examining a contentious Labor policy. Mr Wilson has led town-hall style meetings across the country seeking feedback on Labor's plan to scrap franking credits, a cash refund utilised by self-funded retirees. Labor MPs believe this is a breach of committee conventions and that the hearings, with no formal witness schedule, are being used to whip up opposition before an election campaign. Mr Wilson has confirmed he sought a testimony from a high-profile fund manager and a distant relative, Geoff Wilson, who manages his investments. The financial relationship, first reported by The Sydney Morning Herald, is disclosed on Mr Wilson's register of interest but was not acknowledged before the committee. Geoff Wilson is the founder and manager of Wilson Asset Management, which manages some of Tim Wilson's investments and has led the charge against Labor's policy. The fund manager has argued that Labor's policy is unfair and that public statements by Opposition MPs have "demonstrated contempt for individuals with valid concerns". Tim Wilson has acknowledged he is distantly related to the fund manager, which was also not acknowledged before the committee. "All rules have been adhered to," the Liberal MP said. "If you go back 120 years before cars were invented there's a connection as my father's, father's father is the same as his father's father. "I met with a range of stakeholder groups in the lead up to the first round of hearings to promote attendance, and actively encouraged participation including from Geoff Wilson." 'Clear and fundamental breach' Mr Wilson's inquiry is unusual because parliamentary committees normally examine the impact of government legislation, rather than seeking feedback on Opposition policies. Labor MPs have also complained about Coalition backbenchers handing out Liberal Party membership forms at the hearings. "Tim Wilson must resign immediately as the chair of the House Economics Committee because he has a massive conflict of interest as he's a shareholder in the company that is leading the charge in undermining this policy," said Labor's Matt Thistlethwaite, who serves as Mr Wilson's deputy chairman on the committee. Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen went further and demanded prime ministerial intervention. "Tim Wilson has no choice but to resign and if he won't resign the Prime Minister should sack him," he said. "This is a clear and fundamental breach of convention, of understanding and, frankly, of standing orders." A website established by Mr Wilson also encouraged people to attend the inquiry and to sign a petition against Labor's policy. Contact details were then taken for future campaign activities, although this feature has since been disabled. Mr Wilson has defended the inquiry process insisting no rules have been broken. "Labor has consistently tried to shut these hearings down," he said. "They know the only thing standing between their capacity to steal retirees overpaid tax is this inquiry giving them a voice. "If only Labor would take as much interest in the financial security of retirees and the consequences of this policy as they have trying to shut down this inquiry to silence those affected."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-06/labor-slams-liberal-tim-wilson-calls-for-his-resignation/10784498

Another reason why the Liberals are scared shtless of being held to account.

Another article: PM under pressure to sack Tim Wilson over use of franking credits inquiry

These corrupt crooks know no limits to their malfeasance.

He will be out on his arse with the rest of them soon enough  :)

Well fukk me dead. A senate inquiry that's politically motivated. What a bunch of crooks.

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 1:45pm:

Another article: PM under pressure to sack Tim Wilson over use of franking credits inquiry These corrupt crooks know no limits to their malfeasance.

They will do anything to enrich themselves !

Its time wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 1:50pm:

He will be out on his arse with the rest of them soon enough  :)

Can't wait ;) Hopefully the c..t hasn't done enough years to get his parliamentary handouts ;)

Quote:

Tim Wilson should resign !

Tim Wilson should never have gotten in. Whats wrong with the retarded right that they'd vote in any moron wearing a liberal party badge?

After wilsons attempted hatchet job on his boss at the human rights commission, nobody should ever see him as antthing but what he is, a piece of shite. 

Hmmm.. we seen this before, where the government takes taxpayer money to attack their political opponents.  The RC into unions, remember?

crocodile wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 2:51pm:

Well fukk me dead. A senate inquiry that's politically motivated. What a bunch of crooks.

That makes it alright then???

::) ::) ::)

Tim Wilson is a poofter.  ;)

JollyGreenGiant wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 6:36pm:

Tim Wilson is a poofter.  ;)

Good. Leaves more girls available for the rest of us.

crocodile wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 6:40pm:

JollyGreenGiant wrote on Feb 6th, 2019 at 6:36pm: Tim Wilson is a poofter.  ;) Good. Leaves more girls available for the rest of us.

That's a point but I think there are several here who prefer boys.  ;)

stunspore wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 5:19pm:

Hmmm.. we seen this before, where the government takes taxpayer money to attack their political opponents.

And when Government took my superannuation, that is I had paid it, before employers paid it.  And put it into consolidated revenue to keep government running. With promises that it would be looked after and all accounted for. It is still missing.

Hmm which government could that have been?

JollyGreenGiant wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 6:46pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 6th, 2019 at 6:40pm: JollyGreenGiant wrote on Feb 6th, 2019 at 6:36pm: Tim Wilson is a poofter.  ;) Good. Leaves more girls available for the rest of us. That's a point but I think there are several here who prefer boys.  ;)

Even better

lee wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 6:50pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 6th, 2019 at 5:19pm: Hmmm.. we seen this before, where the government takes taxpayer money to attack their political opponents. And when Government took my superannuation, that is I had paid it, before employers paid it.  And put it into consolidated revenue to keep government running. With promises that it would be looked after and all accounted for. It is still missing. Hmm which government could that have been?

The Howard government did that to set up the Future Fund.

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:19pm:

The Howard government did that to set up the Future Fund.

Wrong petal. The Whitlam Government.

For the sake of trust in politics Tim Wilson must go – the problem is he can't see that

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 8:04pm:

For the sake of trust in politics Tim Wilson must go – the problem is he can't see that

Nor can Morrison

The corrupt grub has to go.

Geoff Wilson told investors Labor's franking credits policy easy to avoid

Bam wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 12:10pm:

The corrupt grub has to go. Geoff Wilson told investors Labor's franking credits policy easy to avoid

OOH restructuring one's tax affairs is now corrupt? So one can't go from a Sole trader to a Partnership. a Partnership to a Trust, a Trust to a Company?

lee wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 1:33pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 12:10pm: The corrupt grub has to go. Geoff Wilson told investors Labor's franking credits policy easy to avoid OOH restructuring one's tax affairs is now corrupt? So one can't go from a Sole trader to a Partnership. a Partnership to a Trust, a Trust to a Company?

What about conflicts of interest and breaches of parliamentary conventions?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 1:37pm:

What about conflicts of interest and breaches of parliamentary conventions?

Changing the question doesn't obviate the former.

But - Does Wilson have an interest in Wilson Assets Management? Not according to the Member's Register. Was a fee paid to Wilson Asset Management? So what conflict of interest?  ;)

Which Parliamentary Convention did he breach?

I'm curious. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 1:33pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 12:10pm: The corrupt grub has to go. Geoff Wilson told investors Labor's franking credits policy easy to avoid OOH restructuring one's tax affairs is now corrupt? So one can't go from a Sole trader to a Partnership. a Partnership to a Trust, a Trust to a Company?

Can't use his relative's company in which he owns shares in conjunction with parliamentary business. Read the article, doofus.

lee wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 1:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 1:37pm: What about conflicts of interest and breaches of parliamentary conventions? Changing the question doesn't obviate the former. But - Does Wilson have an interest in Wilson Assets Management? Not according to the Member's Register. Was a fee paid to Wilson Asset Management? So what conflict of interest?  ;) Which Parliamentary Convention did he breach? I'm curious. ;)

Parliamentary committees are meant to examine the impact of government legislation, not seek feedback on opposition policies, which is what Wilson did.

That's a breach.

And, he's a shareholder in the company that is leading the push to undermine the franking credits policy.

That's a conflict of interest.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 1:54pm:

lee wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 1:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 1:37pm: What about conflicts of interest and breaches of parliamentary conventions? Changing the question doesn't obviate the former. But - Does Wilson have an interest in Wilson Assets Management? Not according to the Member's Register. Was a fee paid to Wilson Asset Management? So what conflict of interest?  ;) Which Parliamentary Convention did he breach? I'm curious. ;) Parliamentary committees are meant to examine the impact of government legislation, not seek feedback on opposition policies, which is what Wilson did. That's a breach. And, he's a shareholder in the company that is leading the push to undermine the franking credits policy. That's a conflict of interest.

Thus, the corrupt grub has to go.

Bam wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 1:50pm:

Can't use his relative's company in which he owns shares in conjunction with parliamentary business. Read the article, doofus.

Let's see-

Distant relative. - Yep. I have distant relatives whose names I don't even know. As I am sure many do.

"in which he owns shares" - Not mentioned anywhere in the story and not on his Pecuniary Interests Register.

So Doofus. Tell us more. Quote where he actually owns shares in this "distant relative's" company.

lee wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 2:09pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 1:50pm: Can't use his relative's company in which he owns shares in conjunction with parliamentary business. Read the article, doofus. Let's see- Distant relative. - Yep. I have distant relatives whose names I don't even know. As I am sure many do. "in which he owns shares" - Not mentioned anywhere in the story and not on his Pecuniary Interests Register. So Doofus. Tell us more. Quote where he actually owns shares in this "distant relative's" company.

"he has a massive conflict of interest as he's a shareholder in the company that is leading the charge in undermining this policy"

"The Liberal MP is a distant relative of the fund manager, and a shareholder in his business.

"According to the parliamentary register of interests, on 10 May 2017 the Liberal MP updated his register to list shareholding in Wilson Asset Management through Wilson-Bolger Superannuation Pty Ltd."

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 1:54pm:

Parliamentary committees are meant to examine the impact of government legislation, not seek feedback on opposition policies, which is what Wilson did.

"When Parliament establishes a committee of inquiry, it decides on the terms of reference – that is, the specific purpose of the inquiry. The committee advertises in newspapers and invites written submissions from the community, experts and interest groups regarding the issue."

Are you saying a distant relative can't make a submission? Edit: Or even a close relative?


greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 1:54pm:

And, he's a shareholder in the company that is leading the push to undermine the franking credits policy.

I suggest you check again. Wilson Asset Management is NOT on his PCR.

lee wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 2:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm: Parliamentary committees are meant to examine the impact of government legislation, not seek feedback on opposition policies, which is what Wilson did. "When Parliament establishes a committee of inquiry, it decides on the terms of reference – that is, the specific purpose of the inquiry. The committee advertises in newspapers and invites written submissions from the community, experts and interest groups regarding the issue." Are you saying a distant relative can't make a submission? greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm: And, he's a shareholder in the company that is leading the push to undermine the franking credits policy. I suggest you check again. Wilson Asset Management is NOT on his PCR.

"According to the parliamentary register of interests, on 10 May 2017 the Liberal MP updated his register to list shareholding in Wilson Asset Management through Wilson-Bolger Superannuation Pty Ltd."

He has to go.

lee wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 2:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm: Parliamentary committees are meant to examine the impact of government legislation, not seek feedback on opposition policies, which is what Wilson did. "When Parliament establishes a committee of inquiry, it decides on the terms of reference – that is, the specific purpose of the inquiry. The committee advertises in newspapers and invites written submissions from the community, experts and interest groups regarding the issue." Are you saying a distant relative can't make a submission? greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm: And, he's a shareholder in the company that is leading the push to undermine the franking credits policy. I suggest you check again. Wilson Asset Management is NOT on his PCR.

Read all the linked articles. It's in there, multiple times. Here's one.


Quote:

The Liberal MP is a distant relative of the fund manager, and a shareholder in his business. According to the parliamentary register of interests, on 10 May 2017 the Liberal MP updated his register to list shareholding in Wilson Asset Management through Wilson-Bolger Superannuation Pty Ltd.

If you want more, stop being a lazy fkk and read the links provided.

See for yourself:

https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/03%20Senators%20and%20Members/32%20Members/Register/45p/SZ/WilsonT_45P.pdf

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 2:16pm:

lee wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 2:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm: Parliamentary committees are meant to examine the impact of government legislation, not seek feedback on opposition policies, which is what Wilson did. "When Parliament establishes a committee of inquiry, it decides on the terms of reference – that is, the specific purpose of the inquiry. The committee advertises in newspapers and invites written submissions from the community, experts and interest groups regarding the issue." Are you saying a distant relative can't make a submission? greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm: And, he's a shareholder in the company that is leading the push to undermine the franking credits policy. I suggest you check again. Wilson Asset Management is NOT on his PCR. "According to the parliamentary register of interests, on 10 May 2017 the Liberal MP updated his register to list shareholding in Wilson Asset Management through Wilson-Bolger Superannuation Pty Ltd." He has to go.

He should take a look at what happened in the state seat of Brighton at the state election, a seat within his Division of Goldstein. An 18-year-old Labor candidate, campaigning on a tiny budget, nearly unseated the Liberal member and was leading the count on election night before losing by 865 votes with an 8.7% swing. Final margin, 1.12%. This is a seat that has existed since 1856 and has never been held by Labor.

Sandringham, same story. Almost taken by Labor, margin reduced to 0.7% with a 6.7% swing. Caulfield, margin reduced to 0.2%. Bentleigh was held by the Labor candidate with an 11.3% swing.

The last thing a Federal member in this area should be doing is engaging in dubious conduct that would tip him out. Goldstein has a 12.7% margin but that could disappear very quickly if an MP is engaging in misconduct.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 2:18pm:

See for yourself: https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/03%20Senators%20and%20Members/32%20Members/Regist...

OK fair enough. You didn't answer the question as to whether a relative can make a submission to a Parliamentary Committee. ;)

So fishy.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 2:16pm:

lee wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 2:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm: Parliamentary committees are meant to examine the impact of government legislation, not seek feedback on opposition policies, which is what Wilson did. "When Parliament establishes a committee of inquiry, it decides on the terms of reference – that is, the specific purpose of the inquiry. The committee advertises in newspapers and invites written submissions from the community, experts and interest groups regarding the issue." Are you saying a distant relative can't make a submission? greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm: And, he's a shareholder in the company that is leading the push to undermine the franking credits policy. I suggest you check again. Wilson Asset Management is NOT on his PCR. "According to the parliamentary register of interests, on 10 May 2017 the Liberal MP updated his register to list shareholding in Wilson Asset Management through Wilson-Bolger Superannuation Pty Ltd." He has to go.

I cannot believe Wilson could be so obviously in conflict and not stand down from the committee....He should get the short shift but the PM is as weak as piss....These ass holes have no moral integrity what so ever???

>:( >:( >:(

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 5:19pm:

I cannot believe Wilson could be so obviously in conflict and not stand down from the committee....He should get the short shift but the PM is as weak as piss....These ass holes have no moral integrity what so ever???

Abbott was a bad leader. Turnbull was a weak leader. Morrison is bad and weak.

Compare this to Howard. If a Minister did something wrong he was not afraid to sack them. He had to sack seven in his first term but this sent a clear message that he wasn't going to tolerate poor performance.

Morrison should sack Wilson but he won't. Morrison is too weak.

Bam wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 6:09pm:

Abbott was a bad leader. Turnbull was a weak leader. Morrison is bad and weak.

Nailed it.

Absolutely nailed it.

If morrison sacked Wilson, he might cross the floor and become a crossbencher.  Can't afford that.  Must cling on every lib/national he can.

Bam wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 6:09pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:19pm: I cannot believe Wilson could be so obviously in conflict and not stand down from the committee....He should get the short shift but the PM is as weak as piss....These ass holes have no moral integrity what so ever??? Abbott was a bad leader. Turnbull was a weak leader. Morrison is bad and weak. Compare this to Howard. If a Minister did something wrong he was not afraid to sack them. He had to sack seven in his first term but this sent a clear message that he wasn't going to tolerate poor performance. Morrison should sack Wilson but he won't. Morrison is too weak.

The libs are hoping to stake much, if not most of their entire election campaign on this franking credits malarkey. They think they can frame it as a 'retirement tax', as if its some wholesale attack on all old people. This sham inquiry is clearly the vanguard to this scare campaign, and therefore it would be very damaging for Morrison indeed if he were to completely derail it by sacking Wilson from the committee - which would in effect be an admission that its a complete sham. So he must stand by the inquiry, which is part and parcel with standing by freedom boy. 

What it actually is is the government shooting themselves in the foot twice - first by having to continue this sham inquiry, which the more they do so exposes itself more and more as a sham, and secondly, stick by the person fronting the sham inquiry, who just makes himself a bigger and bigger target as someone who is compromised.

So instead of rousing a grassroots reaction against Labor's franking credits policy, they have pretty much ensured that continuing the inquiry will just make it all about a) a demonstration of libs abusing process and b) Tim Wilson with conflicts of interest.

love tims work
great guy.
carry on tim

Bam wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 6:09pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:19pm: I cannot believe Wilson could be so obviously in conflict and not stand down from the committee....He should get the short shift but the PM is as weak as piss....These ass holes have no moral integrity what so ever??? Abbott was a bad leader. Turnbull was a weak leader. Morrison is bad and weak. Compare this to Howard. If a Minister did something wrong he was not afraid to sack them. He had to sack seven in his first term but this sent a clear message that he wasn't going to tolerate poor performance. Morrison should sack Wilson but he won't. Morrison is too weak.

And then proceeded to change the ministerial responsibility & never sacked another.
Reith & many others should have gone, but apparently ministers are no longer held accountable for their portfolios.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 12:58pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 6:09pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:19pm: I cannot believe Wilson could be so obviously in conflict and not stand down from the committee....He should get the short shift but the PM is as weak as piss....These ass holes have no moral integrity what so ever??? Abbott was a bad leader. Turnbull was a weak leader. Morrison is bad and weak. Compare this to Howard. If a Minister did something wrong he was not afraid to sack them. He had to sack seven in his first term but this sent a clear message that he wasn't going to tolerate poor performance. Morrison should sack Wilson but he won't. Morrison is too weak. And then proceeded to change the ministerial responsibility & never sacked another. Reith & many others should have gone, but apparently ministers are no longer held accountable for their portfolios.

always loved Johns work
top bloke
miss the little guy

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 5:19pm:

I cannot believe Wilson could be so obviously in conflict and not stand down from the committee..

So let's see-
it was a Parliamentary Committee.
Parliamentary Committees ask for submissions.
These submissions are open for anyone to make.
You can ask your wife, brother, husband etc whether they wish to make a submission, because they are not debarred by statute, rule or convention.

However you can not ask a distant relative in whose business you own shares because....?

So let's look at the Australan Law Library and see what that says -

" The  Senate  has published  a document entitled  How to make a submission to a Senate Committee inquid which indicates that parliamentary privilege only applies  after the  relevant committee has formally accepted the submission. The equivalent House of Representatives document, Preparing a submission to a Parliamentary Committee inquiry does not explicitly make this  point, though it does indicate that a committee has a discretion to decide whether or not to accept a submission. The point of  this mechanism is to allow  a  committee  to  decline  to  clothe  with  parliamentary  privilege  a submission that contains, for example, scurrilous or defamatory material, or because it contains material that is not relevant to the particular inquiry. "


http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AIAdminLawF/2004/16.pdf

So please tell us where this conflict of interest arises.

1. First the purpose of the inquiry is about scrutinize a possible future labor policy.  Labor is not in government.  And the inquiry have already cost the tax payers 160K.  It is as clear as daylight that this is a liberal party political exercise.  I mean, they are even offering $25 a head to wine and dine with aspiring liberal candidates and handing out party application forms.  This is highly inappropriate.  The liberal parties is more than welcome to fund their own political rallies and inquiries, but NOT at tax payer's expense.   Another example of sheer arrogance and utter disrespect for hard earned tax payer dollars.

2. The subject of the inquiry is about frank credits.  Tim Wilson is the chair of the inquiry.  He has shares in a company that his so called distance relative Geoff Wilson owns, who directly benefit from the current policy.   And make no mistake, Geoff is not just a 'long distance' relative.  They are on first name basis, and they communicate through email, and they even planned one of the committee meetings near Geoff's AGM, so that 'they can make a scene'.   

And do you know who is laughing all the way to the bank?  Geoff Wilson.  After blabbing about people is going to lose out upto $30000 a year, he went to to rant that the policy is easy to circum-navigate.  Just change the structure of your investments.   This is just a balant self advertisement for his own company through using a tax payer funded inquiry to gain publicity.

Another shameful behavior from members of liberal party. 

tickleandrose wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 2:47pm:

It is as clear as daylight that this is a liberal party political exercise.

So the coalition should not have informed opinion on the subject. OK.


tickleandrose wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 2:47pm:

The subject of the inquiry is about frank credits.  Tim Wilson is the chair of the inquiry.  He has shares in a company that his so called distance relative Geoff Wilson owns, who directly benefit from the current policy.   And make no mistake, Geoff is not just a 'long distance' relative.  They are on first name basis, and they communicate through email, and they even planned one of the committee meetings near Geoff's AGM, so that 'they can make a scene'.

yes. Many others have shares in all manner of things. Super fund controllers etc. So they should not have an informed opinion either?


tickleandrose wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 2:47pm:

And do you know who is laughing all the way to the bank?  Geoff Wilson.  After blabbing about people is going to lose out upto $30000 a year, he went to to rant that the policy is easy to circum-navigate.  Just change the structure of your investments.   This is just a balant self advertisement for his own company through using a tax payer funded inquiry to gain publicity.

And so other commentators who have made similar pronouncements are free to do so because they have no relative in parliament?

Perhaps you should do a google search.


tickleandrose wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 2:47pm:

This is just a balant self advertisement for his own company through using a tax payer funded inquiry to gain publicity.

Um wasn't the furore created by Labor, when they broadcast the relationship? Talk about Labor doing his advertising for him. ;)

What "informed opinion"? Are you serious?  In the latest meeting on Friday, one man was forcibly removed by fellow attendees at the beginning of the hearing.  Over 2 hours of 3 minute speeches, only one person spoke in favour of labor's poicy.  No witnesses have been formally listed for any of the meetings since the last one in Dee Why in November. 
And even Mr Thistlethwaite, the comittee's deputy chair, said the inquiry was "an outrageous abuse of the Parliament's committee process".

"Liberal MPs are using taxpayer dollars to run around the country encouraging people to do their part and undermine Labor policy," he said.

This is balant use of tax payer's money for liberal party fund raising, and political gains.  Like I said, the liberal party is more than welcome to organize their own rally, their own fund raising, their own inquiries, but NOT on tax payer's expense. 

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 4:02pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 2:47pm: It is as clear as daylight that this is a liberal party political exercise. So the coalition should not have informed opinion on the subject. OK.

Not as a part of a parliamentary inquiry, not if the taxpayers are paying for it, and not if it's being done for personal gain.

It is a flagrant abuse of parliamentary procedures. Surely you can see that.

Bam wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 5:42pm:

It is a flagrant abuse of parliamentary procedures. Surely you can see that.

Yes. Was it a conflict of interest? ;)

tickleandrose wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 5:40pm:

What "informed opinion"? Are you serious?  In the latest meeting on Friday, one man was forcibly removed by fellow attendees at the beginning of the hearing.  Over 2 hours of 3 minute speeches, only one person spoke in favour of labor's poicy.  No witnesses have been formally listed for any of the meetings since the last one in Dee Why in November.  And even Mr Thistlethwaite, the comittee's deputy chair, said the inquiry was "an outrageous abuse of the Parliament's committee process". "Liberal MPs are using taxpayer dollars to run around the country encouraging people to do their part and undermine Labor policy," he said. This is balant use of tax payer's money for liberal party fund raising, and political gains.  Like I said, the liberal party is more than welcome to organize their own rally, their own fund raising, their own inquiries, but NOT on tax payer's expense.

They have clearly not learned the lessons of Bronny's helicopter misuse.

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 5:44pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 5:42pm: It is a flagrant abuse of parliamentary procedures. Surely you can see that. Yes. Was it a conflict of interest? ;)

Yes it is, which you should already know.

Hint: Follow the money.

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 5:44pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 5:42pm: It is a flagrant abuse of parliamentary procedures. Surely you can see that. Yes. Was it a conflict of interest? ;)

It is a conflict of interest as the policy is not even up for debate at the parliament.  The liberal is using tax payer's money to fly around for their political gain. 

It is also a conflict of interest that the chair of the committee, the company that he owned part of, and his relative stood to benefit from the demise of the policy. 

tickleandrose wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 5:40pm:

In the latest meeting on Friday, one man was forcibly removed by fellow attendees at the beginning of the hearing.

Heaven forbid that people should be forcibly removed for something. What was it for? Abuse? No we should let people disrupt meetings with no recourse. ;D ;D ;D


tickleandrose wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 5:40pm:

No witnesses have been formally listed for any of the meetings since the last one in Dee Why in November.

So no witnesses were paid? That's supposed to be a good thing.


tickleandrose wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 5:40pm:

And even Mr Thistlethwaite, the comittee's deputy chair, said the inquiry was "an outrageous abuse of the Parliament's committee process".

That would be the Labor member for Kingsford Smith? Not biased by any chance?


tickleandrose wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 5:40pm:

Like I said, the liberal party is more than welcome to organize their own rally, their own fund raising, their own inquiries, but NOT on tax payer's expense.

But that wasn't all you said was it? Do you recant the rest?

tickleandrose wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 5:48pm:

lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 5:44pm: Bam wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 5:42pm: It is a flagrant abuse of parliamentary procedures. Surely you can see that. Yes. Was it a conflict of interest? ;) It is a conflict of interest as the policy is not even up for debate at the parliament.  The liberal is using tax payer's money to fly around for their political gain.  It is also a conflict of interest that the chair of the committee, the company that he owned part of, and his relative stood to benefit from the demise of the policy.

It's a conflict of interest because T.Wilson is making money out of this through his shareholdings in G.Wilson's company. And some still wonder why the Liberals are scared shtless of any federal anti-corruption commission with retrospective powers.

Bam wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 5:53pm:

It's a conflict of interest because T.Wilson is making money out of this through his shareholdings in G.Wilson's company.

Is he making more money, the same money, or less?

Or is it just your perception that he is making more money?


Bam wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 5:42pm:

Not as a part of a parliamentary inquiry, not if the taxpayers are paying for it, and not if it's being done for personal gain.

Can you actually show where he made a personal gain?

tickleandrose wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 5:48pm:

It is a conflict of interest as the policy is not even up for debate at the parliament.

If it is not up for debate how can it be a conflict of interest? That could only occur when it is up for debate.


tickleandrose wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 5:48pm:

It is also a conflict of interest that the chair of the committee, the company that he owned part of, and his relative stood to benefit from the demise of the policy.

But Billy has said he will not back down. Therefore there is no demise of policy.

I'm glad coalition supporters can't see what's wrong.  It only forces the swinging voters to see how far from reality and decency on that political side. 

stunspore wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 6:47pm:

I'm glad coalition supporters can't see what's wrong.  It only forces the swinging voters to see how far from reality and decency on that political side.

The depths of the political ineptitude of this government is trully breathtaking.

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 1:29pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:19pm: I cannot believe Wilson could be so obviously in conflict and not stand down from the committee.. So please tell us where this conflict of interest arises.

Wilson has shares in a company that will be directly affected by Labor's policy....Dickhead???

Self interest and conflict aside why should taxpayers fork out for an inquiry into a policy that may never happen....Labor haven't won the election yet???

::) ::) ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 6:58pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 6:47pm: I'm glad coalition supporters can't see what's wrong.  It only forces the swinging voters to see how far from reality and decency on that political side.  The depths of the political ineptitude of this government is trully breathtaking.

So you want Bill, then????


Really?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 7:07pm:

lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 1:29pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:19pm: I cannot believe Wilson could be so obviously in conflict and not stand down from the committee.. So please tell us where this conflict of interest arises. Wilson has shares in a company that will be directly affected by Labor's policy....Dickhead??? Self interest and conflict aside why should taxpayers fork out for an inquiry into a policy that may never happen....Labor haven't won the election yet??? ::) ::) ::)

Homophobe!!!!!   :'( :'( :'( :'(

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 7:07pm:

Wilson has shares in a company that will be directly affected by Labor's policy..

Yes and according to tickleandrose it is not up for debate. In which case there is no conflict UNTIL such time as it is up for debate.


philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 7:07pm:

Self interest and conflict aside why should taxpayers fork out for an inquiry into a policy that may never happen....Labor haven't won the election yet???

But all you luvives are so certain they will. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 7:17pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 7:07pm: Wilson has shares in a company that will be directly affected by Labor's policy.. Yes and according to tickleandrose it is not up for debate. In which case there is no conflict UNTIL such time as it is up for debate. WTF is that supposed to mean....You use a quote from another poster to justify a clear conflict and fail as usual....Wilson owns shares in a company that will be directly affected by Labor's policy....Your deflection is pathetic mate!!! philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 7:07pm: Self interest and conflict aside why should taxpayers fork out for an inquiry into a policy that may never happen....Labor haven't won the election yet??? But all you luvives are so certain they will. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Another deflection from the actual context of my comment....You are a dickhead mate!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 7:23pm:

WTF is that supposed to mean....You use a quote from another poster to justify a clear conflict and fail as usual....Wilson owns shares in a company that will be directly affected by Labor's policy..

Yes. And IF Labor win government his will be a minority voice. And he can't be in conflict UNTIL it comes to a vote. Unless of course you can show where I am wrong.


philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 7:23pm:

Another deflection from the actual context of my comment..

lets see -


philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 7:07pm:

philperth2010 wrote Yesterday at 3:19pm: I cannot believe Wilson could be so obviously in conflict and not stand down from the committee..

You haven't detailed where he is currently in conflict. Perhaps you should do so.

It is a committee. It calls for submissions from interested parties, even Labor, who may or may not hold shares in super funds etc. It makes proposals. Sometimes they even hand down differing proposals on party lines. Then it goes to parliament. That is where any conflict could be derived. Unless again you can show different.

https://theconversation.com/tim-wilsons-retirement-tax-website-doesnt-have-a-privacy-policy-so-how-is-he-using-the-data-111076

What's happening to all the privacy details collected?  And why do people get unsolicited emails after a robocall?

So why is it Switzer and not Wilson Asset Management the firm linked to?

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 7:33pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 7:23pm: WTF is that supposed to mean....You use a quote from another poster to justify a clear conflict and fail as usual....Wilson owns shares in a company that will be directly affected by Labor's policy.. Yes. And IF Labor win government his will be a minority voice. And he can't be in conflict UNTIL it comes to a vote. Unless of course you can show where I am wrong. Wilson owns shares in a company that will be directly affected by Labor's policy and he is chairing a committee looking into this policy....He benefits directly by influencing voters leading into an election and he is in conflict because he is not an impartial chairperson!!! philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 7:23pm: Another deflection from the actual context of my comment.. philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 7:07pm: philperth2010 wrote Yesterday at 3:19pm: I cannot believe Wilson could be so obviously in conflict and not stand down from the committee.. You haven't detailed where he is currently in conflict. Perhaps you should do so. You are a dickhead!!! See above!!! ::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 8:41pm:

Wilson owns shares in a company that will be directly affected by Labor's policy and he is chairing a committee looking into this policy...

And there is no vote. Show me where there is a conflict of interest where there is no vote.


philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 8:41pm:

He benefits directly by influencing voters leading into an election and he is in conflict because he is not an impartial chairperson!!!

Please point me to where a chairman has to be impartial.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_4_-_Committees

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief04

No mention of conflict or impartial.

That is a future possible conflict of interest. Where is the CURRENT conflict of interest?

You are just making this up as you go along; aren't you?

Oh dear poor phil can't enunciate his argument therefore I am wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Another thing in need of rectification......

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 9:56pm:

Please point me to where a chairman has to be impartial.

that you need it written down before deciding it is wrong says a lot about the levels you will go to to excuse the corruption. What ever happened to using your common sense?

No so sure about all of this, looks like the Libs have done some wrong but not sure it is a big deal.

The relationship is that distant that it is irrelevant IMO.

Encouraging people to attend in my view is not improper.

Handing out liberal party membership forms in this arena is a no no. Disgraceful thing to do.

Opposing Labor's biggest error is a clever move.

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 9:56pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 8:41pm: Wilson owns shares in a company that will be directly affected by Labor's policy and he is chairing a committee looking into this policy... And there is no vote. Show me where there is a conflict of interest where there is no vote. philperth2010 wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 8:41pm: He benefits directly by influencing voters leading into an election and he is in conflict because he is not an impartial chairperson!!! Please point me to where a chairman has to be impartial. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_4_-_Committees https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief04 No mention of conflict or impartial. That is a future possible conflict of interest. Where is the CURRENT conflict of interest? You are just making this up as you go along; aren't you? Oh dear poor phil can't enunciate his argument therefore I am wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

There is a code of conduct on how our politicians conduct their government duties.  Conflict of interest is one of the first thing that would be taught to you if you ever get a government job.  And the principal is simple.  When you are making a decision at work or conduct government business, you should only be influenced in that decision or task by factors that are genuinely relevant to it.  You shouldnt be influenced by, for example the impact that might have on your, members of your family, or your friends, or your private interest, political motivation, or private business.  It has to be in the public interest first. 

The behavior of the liberal party in those committees are as clear as daylight.  They are handing out liberal party enrolment forms, advertising liberal fund raise, and now people are receiving advertising material from Geoff Wilson's company.  All of this, puts in doubt, Tim Wilson's motive being that of his own private, political and financial interest.  And if the liberal take their job seriously, then he should be stood down immediately, and put in someone who does not have the same complications.

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:44am:

lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 9:56pm: Please point me to where a chairman has to be impartial. that you need it written down before deciding it is wrong says a lot about the levels you will go to to excuse the corruption. What ever happened to using your common sense?

Imagine if all committees were run by people who are bias and have a stake in the outcome of said committee....Why not let the banks hold their own inquiry and clear themselves of any wrong doing....Some people have no moral integrity what so ever and they call the ABC bias???

::) ::) ::)

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:44am:

that you need it written down before deciding it is wrong says a lot about the levels you will go to to excuse the corruption.

Let's see it has gone from conflict  of interest even though no such conflict exists, to corruption, with no evidence pointing to that either.

So you would argue that Labor committees are impartial. That the chair doesn't have a bias one way or the other? Neither believing or disbelieving their own party's work? ;D ;D ;D ;D

tickleandrose wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 11:05am:

There is a code of conduct on how our politicians conduct their government duties.  Conflict of interest is one of the first thing that would be taught to you if you ever get a government job.

Yes petal. Now is that conflict at the pre-committee stage, the committee stage or the voting on the Bill stage?


tickleandrose wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 11:05am:

You shouldnt be influenced by, for example the impact that might have on your, members of your family, or your friends, or your private interest, political motivation, or private business.  It has to be in the public interest first.

Very good. Now as he hasn't voted on anything, where is the conflict of interest?


tickleandrose wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 11:05am:

They are handing out liberal party enrolment forms, advertising liberal fund raise, and now people are receiving advertising material from Geoff Wilson's company.

Two things.

One-  liberal party enrolments - not good.

Two - Can you provide a link to these people "receiving advertising material from Geoff Wilson's company"?

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 11:59am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2019 at 8:44am: that you need it written down before deciding it is wrong says a lot about the levels you will go to to excuse the corruption. Let's see it has gone from conflict  of interest even though no such conflict exists, to corruption, with no evidence pointing to that either. So you would argue that Labor committees are impartial. That the chair doesn't have a bias one way or the other? Neither believing or disbelieving their own party's work? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Apparently it makes no difference according to you....Why are you now changing your tune....Do you have a link to support any Labor bias on any committees dickhead or is this just another distraction....Otherwise you have nothing as usual???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 11:08am:

Imagine if all committees were run by people who are bias and have a stake in the outcome of said committee..

Did you know everyone has biases?

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 12:14pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 9th, 2019 at 11:08am: Imagine if all committees were run by people who are bias and have a stake in the outcome of said committee.. Did you know everyone has biases?

Is that meant to be some kind of justification to ignore bias....This will hurt the Coalition with the majority of Australian's who care about integrity and due process....Keep up not defending Wilson you dickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 11:59am:

Let's see it has gone from conflict  of interest even though no such conflict exists, to corruption, with no evidence pointing to that either.

semantics


lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 11:59am:

So you would argue that Labor committees are impartial. That the chair doesn't have a bias one way or the other? Neither believing or disbelieving their own party's work? Grin Grin Grin Grin

got a quote of me ever saying any of that?


now that you've (hopefully) finished with your red herrings, how about you deal with the actual topic?

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 12:59pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9th, 2019 at 11:59am: Let's see it has gone from conflict  of interest even though no such conflict exists, to corruption, with no evidence pointing to that either. semantics lee wrote on Feb 9th, 2019 at 11:59am: So you would argue that Labor committees are impartial. That the chair doesn't have a bias one way or the other? Neither believing or disbelieving their own party's work? Grin Grin Grin Grin got a quote of me ever saying any of that? now that you've (hopefully) finished with your red herrings, how about you deal with the actual topic?

Good luck with that ...

Bam wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:22pm:

Good luck with that ...

It was a rhetorical question ...everyone knows he'll never just deal with the topic.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 12:52pm:

Is that meant to be some kind of justification to ignore bias.

No petal. It is just that people with biases, everyone, cannot then claim to be impartial.


philperth2010 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 12:52pm:

Keep up not defending Wilson you dickhead!!!

Sorry I haven't done that either. I am merely pointing out the flaws in your "argument". ;)

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 12:59pm:

lee wrote Today at 9:59am: Let's see it has gone from conflict  of interest even though no such conflict exists, to corruption, with no evidence pointing to that either. semantics

Sorry, That's what I thought the thread was about. So you have no evidence but it is still corruption. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:44am:

lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2019 at 9:56pm: Please point me to where a chairman has to be impartial. that you need it written down before deciding it is wrong says a lot about the levels you will go to to excuse the corruption. What ever happened to using your common sense?

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 12:59pm:

lee wrote Today at 9:59am: So you would argue that Labor committees are impartial. That the chair doesn't have a bias one way or the other? Neither believing or disbelieving their own party's work? Grin Grin Grin Grin got a quote of me ever saying any of that?

So you admit Labor are not impartial but the Coalition should be so. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bam wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:22pm:

Good luck with that ...

poor Bammy struggling to become relevant.

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 2:00pm:

Sorry, That's what I thought the thread was about. So you have no evidence but it is still corruption. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

I am of the opinion that he knowingly continuing despite knowing he has a clear conflict of interest is corrupt. Like I said, you can argue the semantics all you like, it won't change a thing.


lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 2:00pm:

So you admit Labor are not impartial but the Coalition should be so.

threads not about labor, it's about Tim Wilson. And by the way, I've said many times that ALL politicians are corrupt.  Now, do you want to deal with the actual topic or do you want to keep flapping about ?


lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 2:09pm:

poor Bammy struggling to become relevant.

nope, he was spot on in his assessment.

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 6:23pm:

I am of the opinion that he knowingly continuing despite knowing he has a clear conflict of interest is corrupt. Like I said, you can argue the semantics all you like, it won't change a thing.

yes petal. Now we get to the nub of the thing. It is purely your opinion. There is nothing other than that. Thanks. ;)


John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 6:23pm:

lee wrote Today at 12:00pm: So you admit Labor are not impartial but the Coalition should be so. threads not about labor, it's about Tim Wilson. And by the way, I've said many times that ALL politicians are corrupt.  Now, do you want to deal with the actual topic or do you want to keep flapping about ?

On that we agree. But all your posts have exclusively been on Wilson. But no regard to Labor being corrupt. So you only want one resignation. Now that is biased. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 12:14pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 9th, 2019 at 11:08am: Imagine if all committees were run by people who are bias and have a stake in the outcome of said committee.. Did you know everyone has biases?

Almost all government committees are run by a government representative and are always biased towards the governments view politics is not an ideal or honest world.

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 6:40pm:

yes petal. Now we get to the nub of the thing. It is purely your opinion. There is nothing other than that. Thanks. Wink

were you under some sort of understanding that I was giving your opinion? :D :D


lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 6:40pm:

On that we agree. But all your posts have exclusively been on Wilson. But no regard to Labor being corrupt. So you only want one resignation. Now that is biased. ;)

Perhaps you should read the title of the thread before commenting?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 7:12pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9th, 2019 at 12:14pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 9th, 2019 at 11:08am: Imagine if all committees were run by people who are bias and have a stake in the outcome of said committee.. Did you know everyone has biases? Almost all government committees are run by a government representative and are always biased towards the governments view politics is not an ideal or honest world.

This Wilson affair is a whole new level of abuse.

When Labor wins the election and they get the National Integrity Commission up and running, Wilson will be one of the first to be investigated.

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 7:57pm:

were you under some sort of understanding that I was giving your opinion?

No petal I was under the misapprehension that you were supplying something evidence based. Not mere conjecture.


John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 7:57pm:

Perhaps you should read the title of the thread before commenting?

Perhaps you should give a reason why only one politician should resign when your opinion is that they are ALL corrupt. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:08pm:

No petal I was under the misapprehension that you were supplying something evidence based. Not mere conjecture.

sorry to disappoint. The evidence is in the article, people can read it and comment, or they can do what you do and deflect.


lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:08pm:

Perhaps you should give a reason why only one politician should resign when your opinion is that they are ALL corrupt

Who said one should resign? Are you high?

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:11pm:

The evidence is in the article, people can read it and comment, or they can do what you do and deflect.

No evidence of conflict of interest or corruption in the article. mere assertions. ;)

The conflict would only occur if he subsequently voted on the matter.


John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:11pm:

Who said one should resign? Are you high?

Well  that is the thread is it not Wilson (one) should resign. Not two, not all who are "corrupt". ;)

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:17pm:

No evidence of conflict of interest or corruption in the article. mere assertions. Wink The conflict would only occur if he subsequently voted on the matter.

no, he doesn't have to vote on the matter for there to be a conflict of interest. Either way he has influence on what happens, what testimony he allows and disallows and how the final conclusions are presented. That alone is enough of a conflict of interest to warrant his dismissal.



lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:17pm:

Well  that is the thread is it not Wilson (one) should resign.

yes, that's how these forums work, we discuss one issue at a time, as they arise. How long have you been on these forums now and you still haven't worked it out?

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:26pm:

Either way he has influence on what happens, what testimony he allows and disallows and how the final conclusions are presented.

You do know he is only the chair? The deputy chair can call people also? As I said much earlier it is not uncommon for committees to give conflicting reports. He doesn't have any role in disallowing testimony (submissions) because the deputy chair can call them, in fact any member can call them.


John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:26pm:

yes, that's how these forums work, we discuss one issue at a time, as they arise. How long have you been on these forums now and you still haven't worked it out?

Yes petal. And the only ones you luvvies want to resign are those not of the Labor persuasion. Talk about biases. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Tim Wilson has mishandled this whole inquiry ... however, the rip-off of on average $5,000 annually from self-funded retirees is still a big issue.

It does hurt those at the low income end the hardest.

It's actually the type of policy that should be anathema to the true Labor ethos because it does clobber the ones at the low end along with the really wealthy ones.

Just shows how low Labor has sunk in its grab for cash.

The policy stinks and it could still blow up in Shorten's and Bowen's faces.

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 10:43am:

Tim Wilson has mishandled this whole inquiry ... however, the rip-off of on average $5,000 annually from self-funded retirees is still a big issue. It does hurt those at the low income end the hardest. It's actually the type of policy that should be anathema to the true Labor ethos because it does clobber the ones at the low end along with the really wealthy ones. Just shows how low Labor has sunk in its grab for cash. The policy stinks and it could still blow up in Shorten's and Bowen's faces.

You've been listening too much to the government's lying propaganda.

Why aren't you complaining as loudly and vociferously about the cuts that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government made to the aged pension after Abbott lied through his teeth on national TV to promise "no cuts to pensions"?

Some of their cuts, both implemented and attempted:
* Direct cuts to the pension
* Increasing pension age to 70
* Cutting pension indexation
* Deeming interest rates significantly higher than market interest rates, forcing pensioners to spend their savings
* Cutting pensions for pensioners who travel overseas
* Cutting pensioner concessions
* Changing the assets test to cut the pension to 370,000 part pensioners
* Axing the energy supplement

They've been going after aged pensioners long and hard for the whole time they've been in office. And you actually believe them?

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 9:33pm:

You do know he is only the chair?

only the chair? :D :D You do realise that puts him in charge right? It doesn't matter what others can do, it only matters what he can do.



lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 9:33pm:

Yes petal. And the only ones you luvvies want to resign are those not of the Labor persuasion. Talk about biases.

now you're talking through your arse again. It wouldn't be the first time I've called for a labor MP to resign. It just happens that the libs are more blatantly corrupt and as a result end up the topic of discussion more often.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 11:34am:

only the chair? Cheesy Cheesy You do realise that puts him in charge right? It doesn't matter what others can do, it only matters what he can do.

Only in charge of procedure petal. It doesn't give him any authority on what submissions can/can't be made. You really don't understand the process; do you?


John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 11:34am:

It wouldn't be the first time I've called for a labor MP to resign.

Ooh the one honest broker within the luvvie ranks? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bam wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 11:33am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 10th, 2019 at 10:43am: Tim Wilson has mishandled this whole inquiry ... however, the rip-off of on average $5,000 annually from self-funded retirees is still a big issue. It does hurt those at the low income end the hardest. It's actually the type of policy that should be anathema to the true Labor ethos because it does clobber the ones at the low end along with the really wealthy ones. Just shows how low Labor has sunk in its grab for cash. The policy stinks and it could still blow up in Shorten's and Bowen's faces. You've been listening too much to the government's lying propaganda. Why aren't you complaining as loudly and vociferously about the cuts that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government made to the aged pension after Abbott lied through his teeth on national TV to promise "no cuts to pensions"? Some of their cuts, both implemented and attempted: * Direct cuts to the pension * Increasing pension age to 70 * Cutting pension indexation * Deeming interest rates significantly higher than market interest rates, forcing pensioners to spend their savings * Cutting pensions for pensioners who travel overseas * Cutting pensioner concessions * Changing the assets test to cut the pension to 370,000 part pensioners * Axing the energy supplement They've been going after aged pensioners long and hard for the whole time they've been in office. And you actually believe them?

I was protesting about this franking Credit Tax return rip-off from retirees from the day it was announced. My opinion has nothing to do with the Government.

I was glad that Shorten buckled after the initial hue and cry to exempt pensioners, but it still hurts non-pensioners who are genuinely on low incomes.

The policy stinks and it might end up hurting Labor big time.

lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 11:40am:

Only in charge of procedure petal.

thankyou for finally seeing the light.


lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 11:40am:

Ooh the one honest broker within the luvvie ranks?

maybe if you took your blinkers off you'd see more of it from others?

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:02pm:

lee wrote Today at 9:40am: Only in charge of procedure petal. thankyou for finally seeing the light.

I already knew that. That doesn't show any conflict right? That would have to rely on the chair actually having "any authority on what submissions can/can't be made".

Never mind petal. GTF. ( Good Try - FAIL). ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:43pm:

That doesn't show any conflict right?

sure it does.


lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:43pm:

That would have to rely on the chair actually having "any authority on what submissions can/can't be made".

authority? not influence? :D :D


lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:43pm:

Never mind petal. GTF. ( Good Try - FAIL).

Good of you to grade your performance :D

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:46pm:

lee wrote Today at 10:43am: That doesn't show any conflict right? sure it does.

You would have to expand on that and prove it. ;)


John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:46pm:

lee wrote Today at 10:43am: That would have to rely on the chair actually having "any authority on what submissions can/can't be made". authority? not influence?

So Wilson can influence the Labor deputy chair and the other Labor members of the committee? Why; are they spineless or something? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:46pm:

lee wrote Today at 10:43am: Never mind petal. GTF. ( Good Try - FAIL). Good of you to grade your performance

Oh dear cognitive dissonance strikes the young John Smith yet again. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:54pm:

You would have to expand on that and prove it.

no, I don't.
lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:54pm:

So Wilson can influence the Labor deputy chair and the other Labor members of the committee? Why; are they spineless or something? Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

Of course he can . Politicians do these things all day every day. Have you been living in a cave?

lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:54pm:

Oh dear cognitive dissonance strikes the young John Smith yet again.

you're grasping again

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 11:42am:

Bam wrote on Feb 10th, 2019 at 11:33am: Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 10th, 2019 at 10:43am: Tim Wilson has mishandled this whole inquiry ... however, the rip-off of on average $5,000 annually from self-funded retirees is still a big issue. It does hurt those at the low income end the hardest. It's actually the type of policy that should be anathema to the true Labor ethos because it does clobber the ones at the low end along with the really wealthy ones. Just shows how low Labor has sunk in its grab for cash. The policy stinks and it could still blow up in Shorten's and Bowen's faces. You've been listening too much to the government's lying propaganda. Why aren't you complaining as loudly and vociferously about the cuts that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government made to the aged pension after Abbott lied through his teeth on national TV to promise "no cuts to pensions"? Some of their cuts, both implemented and attempted: * Direct cuts to the pension * Increasing pension age to 70 * Cutting pension indexation * Deeming interest rates significantly higher than market interest rates, forcing pensioners to spend their savings * Cutting pensions for pensioners who travel overseas * Cutting pensioner concessions * Changing the assets test to cut the pension to 370,000 part pensioners * Axing the energy supplement They've been going after aged pensioners long and hard for the whole time they've been in office. And you actually believe them? I was protesting about this franking Credit Tax return rip-off from retirees from the day it was announced. My opinion has nothing to do with the Government. I was glad that Shorten buckled after the initial hue and cry to exempt pensioners, but it still hurts non-pensioners who are genuinely on low incomes. The policy stinks and it might end up hurting Labor big time.

You haven't answered my question:

Why aren't you complaining as loudly and vociferously about the cuts that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government made to the aged pension after Abbott lied through his teeth on national TV to promise "no cuts to pensions"?

Or, edited for clarity:

Why aren't you complaining about the cuts that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government made to the aged pension?

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:57pm:

lee wrote Today at 10:54am: You would have to expand on that and prove it. no, I don't.

yep for you assertions are good enough. ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:57pm:

So Wilson can influence the Labor deputy chair and the other Labor members of the committee? Why; are they spineless or something? Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Of course he can . Politicians do these things all day every day. Have you been living in a cave?

Oh dear now Labor politicians are jellybacks, don't hold dearly to their beliefs. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bam wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 2:05pm:

Why aren't you complaining about the cuts that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government made to the aged pension?

Those things have been done and can't be retrospectively undone; even by Bill. He probably won't even try; which tells you where his priorities lie.

The Imputation imbroglio is prospective and doesn't need to be undone as it hasn't been implemented.

Bam wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 2:05pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 10th, 2019 at 11:42am: Bam wrote on Feb 10th, 2019 at 11:33am: Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 10th, 2019 at 10:43am: Tim Wilson has mishandled this whole inquiry ... however, the rip-off of on average $5,000 annually from self-funded retirees is still a big issue. It does hurt those at the low income end the hardest. It's actually the type of policy that should be anathema to the true Labor ethos because it does clobber the ones at the low end along with the really wealthy ones. Just shows how low Labor has sunk in its grab for cash. The policy stinks and it could still blow up in Shorten's and Bowen's faces. You've been listening too much to the government's lying propaganda. Why aren't you complaining as loudly and vociferously about the cuts that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government made to the aged pension after Abbott lied through his teeth on national TV to promise "no cuts to pensions"? Some of their cuts, both implemented and attempted: * Direct cuts to the pension * Increasing pension age to 70 * Cutting pension indexation * Deeming interest rates significantly higher than market interest rates, forcing pensioners to spend their savings * Cutting pensions for pensioners who travel overseas * Cutting pensioner concessions * Changing the assets test to cut the pension to 370,000 part pensioners * Axing the energy supplement They've been going after aged pensioners long and hard for the whole time they've been in office. And you actually believe them? I was protesting about this franking Credit Tax return rip-off from retirees from the day it was announced. My opinion has nothing to do with the Government. I was glad that Shorten buckled after the initial hue and cry to exempt pensioners, but it still hurts non-pensioners who are genuinely on low incomes. The policy stinks and it might end up hurting Labor big time. You haven't answered my question: Why aren't you complaining as loudly and vociferously about the cuts that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government made to the aged pension after Abbott lied through his teeth on national TV to promise "no cuts to pensions"? Or, edited for clarity: Why aren't you complaining about the cuts that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government made to the aged pension?

I am complaining about cuts to the aged pension.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time.  ;)

By the way ... are you related to John McEnroe?  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKg61sa6Gkw

I might mention, BTW ... The pension has in fact been increasing.

Even the "Energy Supplement" which was supposed to be for the Carbon Tax is still there, although not indexed anymore ... but then again ... the Carbon Tax is no longer there!  ;D

https://i.imgur.com/d6Iecrr.jpg



Not to say that it shouldn't be increased even more.  ;)

lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 2:11pm:

yep for you assertions are good enough

no. For me, when discussing an article, the contents of the article are typically enough. If you have evidence to the contrary it is up to you to provide it. It's not up to me to prove your assertions wrong.


lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 2:11pm:

Oh dear now Labor politicians are jellybacks, don't hold dearly to their beliefs. Grin Grin Grin Grin

Don't try to put words in my mouth. You're barely capable of putting them in your own. Politicians are politicians. Self interest is the ultimate goal.

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:26pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9th, 2019 at 8:17pm: No evidence of conflict of interest or corruption in the article. mere assertions. Wink The conflict would only occur if he subsequently voted on the matter. no, he doesn't have to vote on the matter for there to be a conflict of interest. Either way he has influence on what happens, what testimony he allows and disallows and how the final conclusions are presented. That alone is enough of a conflict of interest to warrant his dismissal. lee wrote on Feb 9th, 2019 at 8:17pm: Well  that is the thread is it not Wilson (one) should resign. yes, that's how these forums work, we discuss one issue at a time, as they arise. How long have you been on these forums now and you still haven't worked it out?

I would think that the conflict of interest point is difficult in this case. Every member of government would have managed investments all of which would be opposing this legislation.

Attendance at each meeting is not controlled so knowledge of any particular extra level of conflict would be very difficult to manage.

Conflict of interest - yes - all of them, every single committee member.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 4:59pm:

For me, when discussing an article, the contents of the article are typically enough.

But assertions in an article are not proof. So you want things to be proof free?


John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 4:59pm:

It's not up to me to prove your assertions wrong.

It is your assertion that there is a conflict. ;)


John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 4:59pm:

Don't try to put words in my mouth.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:57pm:

So Wilson can influence the Labor deputy chair and the other Labor members of the committee? Why; are they spineless or something? Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Of course he can . Politicians do these things all day every day.

They are your words petal.

lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 5:32pm:

But assertions in an article are not proof. So you want things to be proof free?

if you want to claim the writer of the article is lying, it's up to you to prove it. It's not up to me to prove you wrong.


lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 5:32pm:

It is your assertion that there is a conflict

No, that was whoever wrote the article. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to take his word for it.


lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 5:32pm:

They are your words petal

no, they were your words.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 5:43pm:

if you want to claim the writer of the article is lying, it's up to you to prove it.

Did I say that? Or did I say it was an assertion? ;)


John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 5:43pm:

no, they were your words.

That you agreed with petal.


John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 12:57pm:

Of course he can .

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 5:43pm:

No, that was whoever wrote the article.

So he didn't check whether it was true or not and you just agreed with him making that assertion. ;)

Edit : Actually you are wrong -

""Tim Wilson must resign immediately as the chair of the House Economics Committee because he has a massive conflict of interest as he's a shareholder in the company that is leading the charge in undermining this policy," said Labor's Matt Thistlethwaite, who serves as Mr Wilson's deputy chairman on the committee."

It is a direct quote of the Deputy Chair, the Labor member.

Has he got a timeline of when Wilson Asset Management made the first announcement as compared to Switzer and others?

lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 5:53pm:

Did I say that? Or did I say it was an assertion? Wink

you haven't proven either.


lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 5:53pm:

That you agreed with petal.

No, if you understood grammar you would realise that my answer was in response to your first question in your statement. That is evidenced by my use of the word 'he'. The second question you asked I did not respond to. Any answer you attributed to it is entirely of your own making.

So Wilson does not have the confidence of the Committee and has a conflict due to his financial holdings (shares)....Geoff Wilson has admitted to part-funding the website through which the Liberal MP Tim Wilson has coordinated opposition to Labor’s franking credit policy, while chairing an inquiry into it....The Liberal Party are using this taxpayer funded "inquiry" as a fundraiser and Wilson has been referred to the AFP for sharing electoral roll information for commercial purposes....This will bite the Liberal Party on the ass!!!


Quote:

""Tim Wilson must resign immediately as the chair of the House Economics Committee because he has a massive conflict of interest as he's a shareholder in the company that is leading the charge in undermining this policy," said Labor's Matt Thistlethwaite, who serves as Mr Wilson's deputy chairman on the committee."

I agree Matt!!!

[smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=beer.gif]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/08/labor-asks-afp-to-investigate-tim-wilson-over-electoral-roll-information

Can't be right Phil, Lee says there is no conflict of interest because he didn't vote for anything  :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 6:16pm:

Can't be right Phil, Lee says there is no conflict of interest because he didn't vote for anything

And the article doesn't saying anything about conflict of interest because of shareholdings. But about possible misuse of electoral rolls.

Two entirely different things.

So from what the deputy chair said there was conflict because of Wilson Asset management "leading the charge". Now I suspect there is at least some hyperbole on his part. What needs to be determined is how much is fact and how much hyperbole. ;)

Should Tim resign ?

I don't know

Don't think I had ever heard of him and don't have a view.

If he resigns or is turfed out at the next election makes little difference IMO.

lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 2:16pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 10th, 2019 at 2:05pm: Why aren't you complaining about the cuts that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government made to the aged pension? Those things have been done and can't be retrospectively undone; even by Bill.

:D

You have very little understanding of how laws work. Enact an Act of Parliament, changes repealed.

Bam wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 8:34pm:

You have very little understanding of how laws work. Enact an Act of Parliament, changes repealed.

Yes petal. I understand perfectly, but perhaps I should have added "not easily". So what would Bill then have to do once the changes were undone? Have you thought of that? Because repealing laws have consequences.  Or do you think it would go into the "too hard basket"? ;)

lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 8:46pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 10th, 2019 at 8:34pm: You have very little understanding of how laws work. Enact an Act of Parliament, changes repealed. I understand perfectly, but perhaps I should have added "not easily".

You don't understand at all, otherwise you wouldn't have posted your nonsense.

Bam wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 10:06pm:

You don't understand at all, otherwise you wouldn't have posted your nonsense.

never mind Bam. One day you may grow a brain.

Will Tim Wilson survive his re-election?  What's his margin?

stunspore wrote on Feb 11^th, 2019 at 6:37pm:

Will Tim Wilson survive his re-election?  What's his margin?

Very Safe Liberal Seat.

https://i.imgur.com/B8uMKqU.jpg

Well...like i said earlier, he would be hit with privacy issues.  What's the penalty i don't know.  Enough to make him illegal as a candidate?  Unlikely.