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



"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.

See for yourself:

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

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



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

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


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???

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


Nailed it.

Absolutely nailed it.

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


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.

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


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.

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



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.