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

So you want Bill, then????


Really?

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



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:



But all you luvives are so certain they will.

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



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:



lets see -

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


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.

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

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


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:


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

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice...

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Sena...

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.

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



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?

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


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:



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?