LABOR has tried to move a rare no confidence motion against Speaker Bronwyn Bishop capping off a fiery week in federal Parliament. 
 
Manager of Opposition Business Tony Burke took the action after the Speaker named Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus for interjecting during Question Time.

Her decision prompted a vote, which was passed 82 to 54, to the cries of “shame” from Opposition MPs.

It means Mr Dreyfus has been barred from Parliament for 24 hours.

After criticising the Speaker’s performance throughout the sitting fortnight, Mr Burke took to his feet moving the motion, not used since 1949.

He said he was doing so because Ms Bishop favours government members.

“She regards herself merely as an instrument of the Liberal Party and not as a custodian of the rights and privileges of elected members of the parliament,” Mr Burke added.

He accused her of failing to correctly interpret the standing orders of the House of Representatives and of “gross” incompetence.

Leader of the House Christopher Pyne rejected the motion as merely a “stunt”.

He said if the vote passes it will be a display of confidence in the Speaker.

Talking up his performance in the 43rd Parliament, Mr Pyne argued he wasn’t a “sook” like Mr Burke.

The Minister described Labor’s motion as “utterly unprecedented”.

“The Speaker has been very tolerant and generous,” Mr Pyne claimed.

But Opposition frontbencher Anthony Albanese said she has taken “the low road of partisanship”.

“We all know that this is a position you coveted for years and years,” Mr Albanese said.

Moving the motion Mr Burke said: “I move — That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Honourable Member for Watson from moving the following motion forthwith.

That the House has no further confidence in Madam Speaker on the grounds:

That in the discharge of her duties she has revealed serious partiality in favour of Government Members;

That she regards herself merely as the instrument of the Liberal Party and not as the custodian of the rights and privileges of elected Members of the Parliament;

That she constantly fails to interpret correctly the Standing Orders of the House; and

Of gross incompetency in her administration of Parliamentary procedure.

But Labor was unsuccessful in suspending standing orders to move its motion, with the vote defeated 51 to 83.

Government members cheered at the result.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/labor-moves-no-confidence-motion-against-speaker-bronwyn-bishop-claiming-gross-incompetence/story-fni0xqrc-1226866472317

The behaviour of Labor MP's in this new parliament has been nothing short of appalling. Bishop should wield her considerable power more frequently. Labor needs to get over the fact they no longer have one of their own in the Speaker's chair and not enough numbers to influence votes in the House of Rep's.

Are all these AP threads meant to distract us from the fact that AP lied about the wreckage of the lost Malaysian flight?

                                   :-/

What she needs to do is chuck a good number out every time they get out of hand.
They are bent on nothing but frustration of the business of the House.
What can you expect of a parliamentary party composed mainly of union officials?

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 2:37pm:

What she needs to do is chuck a good number out every time they get out of hand. They are bent on nothing but frustration of the business of the House. What can you expect of a parliamentary party composed mainly of union officials?

... and whose membership rules specify that ALP members must be unionists!

Yes it was all pretty disgusting and the ALP have no right to criticise after their last speaker  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Grendel wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 2:42pm:

Yes it was all pretty disgusting and the ALP have no right to criticise after their last speaker  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

You want to explain?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 2:37pm:

Are all these AP threads meant to distract us from the fact that AP lied about the wreckage of the lost Malaysian flight?                                    :-/

I think he wants to bury the story about the basher having his worst week yet as PM that is even doing the rounds in News lmd papers.

Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit.

skippy. wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 2:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:37pm: Are all these AP threads meant to distract us from the fact that AP lied about the wreckage of the lost Malaysian flight?                                    :-/ I think he wants to bury the story about the basher having his worst week yet as PM that is even doing the rounds in News lmd papers.

Rudd isn't PM anymore and hasn't been in the news for a while??? :-?

Labor got rid of the most balanced Speaker they had had in many years, Then we had to put up with the shrieker and the serpent.
Bishop will do a good job given a chance by Labor, who at some time surely must come to terms with being out of office.

If you don't see the bias of Bishop then it's a safe bet that you're at least as biased as her.

Bring back Springer - love him or hate him - he was a great speaker.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

The Minister described Labor’s motion as “utterly unprecedented”.

Utterly unprecedented?  Garbage.  Typical misleading tactics.

Robert Menzies moved a motion of no confidence in the speaker (Sol Rosevear) in 1946.  The debate at one point saw Harold Holt suspended from the house.

If it was good enough for the Liberals then, why is it so outrageous for Labor to do it now?

Broomhilda is a terrible Speaker. Senile, forgets members titles, mixes titles up and is hugely biased to the Libs! You see it every day in QTs. She is a disgrace and an embarrassment even to herself.

She will face more motions of dissent/no confidence.

It's quite amusing watching you leftards get your BP up over this when you never minded the blatant bias of Harry Jenkins or Anna Burke...

Frances wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 3:05pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:30pm: The Minister described Labor’s motion as “utterly unprecedented”. Utterly unprecedented?  Garbage.  Typical misleading tactics. Robert Menzies moved a motion of no confidence in the speaker (Sol Rosevear) in 1946.  The debate at one point saw Harold Holt suspended from the house. If it was good enough for the Liberals then, why is it so outrageous for Labor to do it now?

Totally Agree!

What about this dick Bogarde73's statement

Quote:

They are bent on nothing but frustration of the business of the House.

Obviously he cant recall what Tony Abbott was like in QT when in opposition.. Damn fool!

Frances wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 3:05pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:30pm: The Minister described Labor’s motion as “utterly unprecedented”. Utterly unprecedented?  Garbage.  Typical misleading tactics. Robert Menzies moved a motion of no confidence in the speaker (Sol Rosevear) in 1946.  The debate at one point saw Harold Holt suspended from the house. If it was good enough for the Liberals then, why is it so outrageous for Labor to do it now?

Your last question is rhetorical isn't it?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 2:43pm:

Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit.

No it tells you how biased and childish this bunch of ALP members are.
Dreyfus has deserved the boot many times and not got it under a Labor speakership.
Anna Burke was very biased and allowed the ALP to do whatever they pleased and continually fail to answer questions.
She has no credibility or right to criticise anyone.

Phemanderac wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 3:20pm:

Frances wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 3:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:30pm: The Minister described Labor’s motion as “utterly unprecedented”. Utterly unprecedented?  Garbage.  Typical misleading tactics. Robert Menzies moved a motion of no confidence in the speaker (Sol Rosevear) in 1946.  The debate at one point saw Harold Holt suspended from the house. If it was good enough for the Liberals then, why is it so outrageous for Labor to do it now? Your last question is rhetorical isn't it?

Actually it's a question I wouldn't mind seeing someone try to answer.

Even Hawker was nowhere near as biased as the senile old witch in the chair now FFS!

“Madam Speaker” is not unparliamentary!

SHAME LABOR SHAME.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 2:50pm:

skippy. wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:37pm: Are all these AP threads meant to distract us from the fact that AP lied about the wreckage of the lost Malaysian flight?                                    :-/ I think he wants to bury the story about the basher having his worst week yet as PM that is even doing the rounds in News lmd papers. Rudd isn't PM anymore and hasn't been in the news for a while??? :-?

That's right. These leftards just can't accept the fact they lost. They think their messiah is still PM.

Pathetic, leftards, just pathetic.

Grendel wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 3:20pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit. No it tells you how biased and childish this bunch of ALP members are. Dreyfus has deserved the boot many times and not got it under a Labor speakership. Anna Burke was very biased and allowed the ALP to do whatever they pleased and continually fail to answer questions. She has no credibility or right to criticise anyone.

Care to show us examples, oh dear conservative leftie?

Or are you doing your usual finger at lips and shake routine?

FFS BBish is not just totally biased but senile and incapable of doing the job.

What is it about conservatives - they want to quash all dissenting voices.

No speaker has ever been this biased.

Finally - Grendel - Admit your a Coalition shill, you've never agreed with any ALP policy and sing straight from their hymn book.

The speaker should be independent and not belong to any political party

http://www.independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/an-independent-australian-constitution,4395


The Speaker, Deputy Speaker and the President, Deputy President of the Senate should be nominated by the Governor-General. They must not be an MP or senator.

I said this back August 2012 and don't come on and say I am only saying because of how Bishop is acting now

I have seen Bronwyn Bishop as speaker a few times, and I have to admit I was surprised at how blatantly she displayed her bias.
She does not even pretend to be fair or even handed, which does seem to give legitimacy to Labor putting forward the motion they did, and in the words they chose to do so.
I know people disparage Slipper for his previous transgressions, but you could see he really did try to fulfill the role of speaker as fairly, and honorably as he could, and I think it must be a long time since we have had such a cavalier disdain for the honour needed in the role of speaker, as displayed by Bishop.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 4:35pm:

I know people disparage Slipper for his previous transgressions, but you could see he really did try to fulfill the role of speaker as fairly, and honorably as he could

Yes, in spite of his other failings and problems, I always thought that Slipper was one of the best Federal Speakers we have had.

At the risk of another image from roach, I agree with Frances 100% again!

He sent the Deputy PM out the House for an hour at least once, sat the PM down more than once and maintained order generally.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 4:10pm:

Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 3:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit. No it tells you how biased and childish this bunch of ALP members are. Dreyfus has deserved the boot many times and not got it under a Labor speakership. Anna Burke was very biased and allowed the ALP to do whatever they pleased and continually fail to answer questions. She has no credibility or right to criticise anyone. Care to show us examples, oh dear conservative leftie? Or are you doing your usual finger at lips and shake routine?

Perhaps you missed parliament on tv under Burke.
So why are you here debating stuff you are ignorant of.
I saw it I know how biased she was even Jenkins was biased but you didn't see the Coalition arc up the way these prats do.  Slipper was probably the best of the 3 of them under Labor.  Bishop is IMO not doing a good job, but then they aren't making her life easy are they.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 2:37pm:

Are all these AP threads meant to distract us from the fact that AP lied about the wreckage of the lost Malaysian flight?                                    :-/

I'm not altogether sure what you are referring to but how is it possible to lie about a topic about which the truth is not even known?  That is a logical fallacy.

You are joking! Prissy Pyne was constantly making BS points of order. Mostly wrong. When he raised a POO about relevance the Speaker told whichever Minister was answering the question to relate the answer to the question.

Broomhilda just says “No point of order” and she has a nasty habit of not recognising Burke or whoever at the despatch box until the Minister has finished his answer.

She is obviously totally biased!

Grendel wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 5:00pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:10pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 3:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit. No it tells you how biased and childish this bunch of ALP members are. Dreyfus has deserved the boot many times and not got it under a Labor speakership. Anna Burke was very biased and allowed the ALP to do whatever they pleased and continually fail to answer questions. She has no credibility or right to criticise anyone. Care to show us examples, oh dear conservative leftie? Or are you doing your usual finger at lips and shake routine? Perhaps you missed parliament on tv under Burke. So why are you here debating stuff you are ignorant of. I saw it I know how biased she was even Jenkins was biased but you didn't see the Coalition arc up the way these prats do.  Slipper was probably the best of the 3 of them under Labor.  Bishop is IMO not doing a good job, but then they aren't making her life easy are they.

I want examples, teaspoon.  Your usual "I am going to substantiate with my own broad opinion" isn't going to work.

Like I said, Yes, they are ALL biased. Which is why when someone comes out and actually points it out like they have, surely it must mean she is absolutely disgracefully biased.

Watching Speakers in general has been a tortuous experience as they oscillate between bias and error with some disinterest and slumber to keep up the variety.  Jenkins was the best of the most recent batch but hardly stellar.  Slipper was an appalling person and so his speakership was tainted before he started and respect is essential to the position and he had none.

I like the idea of an unbiased non-political Speaker but in practice, how do you achieve that? The G-G is also not allowed to be part of a political party but did that stop Bob Hawke from appointing Bill the Policeman to the position?  No, he simply resigned from the ALP the day he accepted the position.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 5:09pm:

Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:10pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 3:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit. No it tells you how biased and childish this bunch of ALP members are. Dreyfus has deserved the boot many times and not got it under a Labor speakership. Anna Burke was very biased and allowed the ALP to do whatever they pleased and continually fail to answer questions. She has no credibility or right to criticise anyone. Care to show us examples, oh dear conservative leftie? Or are you doing your usual finger at lips and shake routine? Perhaps you missed parliament on tv under Burke. So why are you here debating stuff you are ignorant of. I saw it I know how biased she was even Jenkins was biased but you didn't see the Coalition arc up the way these prats do.  Slipper was probably the best of the 3 of them under Labor.  Bishop is IMO not doing a good job, but then they aren't making her life easy are they. I want examples, teaspoon.  Your usual "I am going to substantiate with my own broad opinion" isn't going to work. Like I said, Yes, they are ALL biased. Which is why when someone comes out and actually points it out like they have, surely it must mean she is absolutely disgracefully biased.

I can't help it if you are so badly served you don't know how bad Burke was.  not my problem.
You can read hansard or watch youtube or buy yourself a Wayback machine... 
If you are so biased you can't see what is happening then there is also the question to be asked...  what's the point of telling you anything.  :D :D :D

mozzaok wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 4:35pm:

I have seen Bronwyn Bishop as speaker a few times, and I have to admit I was surprised at how blatantly she displayed her bias. She does not even pretend to be fair or even handed, which does seem to give legitimacy to Labor putting forward the motion they did, and in the words they chose to do so. I know people disparage Slipper for his previous transgressions, but you could see he really did try to fulfill the role of speaker as fairly, and honorably as he could, and I think it must be a long time since we have had such a cavalier disdain for the honour needed in the role of speaker, as displayed by Bishop.

Good post. Agreed.

She failed at everything she touched as a Minister in the Howard 'govt', and is now displaying
the same level of incompetence and disdain for fair play that she exhibited then.

She was a failure then, and she's a failure now.

Whenever she starts her BS, the Opposition should simply get up and walk out, en masse.

Grendel wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 5:17pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:09pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:10pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 3:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit. No it tells you how biased and childish this bunch of ALP members are. Dreyfus has deserved the boot many times and not got it under a Labor speakership. Anna Burke was very biased and allowed the ALP to do whatever they pleased and continually fail to answer questions. She has no credibility or right to criticise anyone. Care to show us examples, oh dear conservative leftie? Or are you doing your usual finger at lips and shake routine? Perhaps you missed parliament on tv under Burke. So why are you here debating stuff you are ignorant of. I saw it I know how biased she was even Jenkins was biased but you didn't see the Coalition arc up the way these prats do.  Slipper was probably the best of the 3 of them under Labor.  Bishop is IMO not doing a good job, but then they aren't making her life easy are they. I want examples, teaspoon.  Your usual "I am going to substantiate with my own broad opinion" isn't going to work. Like I said, Yes, they are ALL biased. Which is why when someone comes out and actually points it out like they have, surely it must mean she is absolutely disgracefully biased. I can't help it if you are so badly served you don't know how bad Burke was.  not my problem. You can read hansard or watch youtube or buy yourself a Wayback machine...  If you are so biased you can't see what is happening then there is also the question to be asked...  what's the point of telling you anything.  :D :D :D

So in other words you  have nothing.

Have a nice day, as usual your stupidity is highlighted for everyone.

Kat wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 5:23pm:

She failed at everything she touched as a Minister in the Howard 'govt', and is now displaying the same level of incompetence and disdain for fair play that she exhibited then. She was a failure then, and she's a failure now. Whenever she starts her BS, the Opposition should simply get up and walk out, en masse.

That would be foolish, childish and utterly pointless.  What better way to demonstrate to the Australian voter that the decision to turf them out of office was the right one.

Remember when Bishop flat out lied on Hansard?  good times.

Most speakers are bisaed, but I don't remember anyone flat out lying repeatedly to silence people they don't want to speak.

Bishop is the worst speaker I have ever seen bar none!!!

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXR6s2NFpCo

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrZ0M1-lbKw

How do you get hold of those You Tube clips so quickly?

Grendel wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 5:00pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:10pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 3:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit. No it tells you how biased and childish this bunch of ALP members are. Dreyfus has deserved the boot many times and not got it under a Labor speakership. Anna Burke was very biased and allowed the ALP to do whatever they pleased and continually fail to answer questions. She has no credibility or right to criticise anyone. Care to show us examples, oh dear conservative leftie? Or are you doing your usual finger at lips and shake routine? Perhaps you missed parliament on tv under Burke. So why are you here debating stuff you are ignorant of. I saw it I know how biased she was even Jenkins was biased but you didn't see the Coalition arc up the way these prats do.

That's not true.

In the last parliament, the Coalition moved to suspend standing orders in almost every sitting week of the last parliament, far more than is usual. You tell me that every occasion was justified.

In the last Parliament, The Coalition denied pairs for stupid reasons - the first time any Federal Opposition did that since before the last time that the United Australia Party was in office. You tell me that every denial of a pair was justified.

During this parliament, this crap Speaker has denied points of order before they have even been made and indulged in numerous other examples of bias. Calling "Madam Speaker" is grounds for ejection! Really! You tell me that every ejection from Parliament was justified and every denial of points of order was justified.

Since Bishop became speaker, 98 members of parliament have been thrown out of the chamber.....

How many of these were Govt members???

ZERO !!!!!

Nah!!
Bronwitch is not biased......

:D

Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 5:17pm:

Watching Speakers in general has been a tortuous experience as they oscillate between bias and error with some disinterest and slumber to keep up the variety.  Jenkins was the best of the most recent batch but hardly stellar.  Slipper was an appalling person and so his speakership was tainted before he started and respect is essential to the position and he had none.

Slipper was only perceived as tainted because his own party sought to smear him. As a Speaker he was reasonable. Jenkins was also a decent Speaker.


Quote:

I like the idea of an unbiased non-political Speaker but in practice, how do you achieve that? The G-G is also not allowed to be part of a political party but did that stop Bob Hawke from appointing Bill the Policeman to the position?  No, he simply resigned from the ALP the day he accepted the position.

The British Parliament has a tradition where a Speaker resigns from their party when they are appointed, and the major parties do not stand candidates in the Speaker's seat.

In the early days of Federal Parliament, the Australian Parliament followed a similar tradition. The first Speaker, Frederick Holder, was an independent who was often elected unopposed.

I didn't think it possible to have a Speaker as biased, if not even more so, than Burke, but Bishop has proved me wrong.

Her bias is blatant and disgisting, because the role is supposed to be totally and unequivocally impartial.

Harry Jenkins was a good and balanced Speaker, but was shafted by Labor to give them a buffer.

Slipper was great too.

Burke and Bishop are as bad as each other, and to defend one and not the other is completely hypocritical, be it from the Liberal or Labor fanboys on here.

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 6:01pm:

How do you get hold of those You Tube clips so quickly?

Google!!!

;) ;) ;)

It does not take long to find examples from the House Hansard.

March 3 2014, Shorten to Abbott, Qantas

Quote:

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:13): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Treasurer confirmed on 13 February that Qantas had met each of the Treasurer's four preconditions for government involvement in individual enterprises. Prime Minister, if Qantas has met the Treasurer's test, why will the government not act? Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:13): We are more than happy, as the Treasurer has abundantly made clear, to take the shackles off Qantas. That is what we want to do. We want to get rid of the carbon tax, which is a $100 million-plus hit on Qantas jobs, and we do want to remove from Qantas the shackles placed upon it by the Qantas Sale Act. Again I say to Leader of the Opposition: if he is fair dinkum about wanting to help the workers at Qantas, if he is fair dinkum about wanting to do the right thing by Qantas—make Qantas more competitive and more efficient in these difficult days—he should work with the government to decouple the bills in the Senate so that this very day we can free all of the airlines of this country from the carbon tax. The only thing stopping that is the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question referred specifically to the Treasurer's four preconditions, and the Prime Minister is going absolutely nowhere near it. The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is addressing the issue that was raised in the question, but it would be good if he would address it specifically. Mr ABBOTT: What members opposite essentially want the government to do is provide to one airline what we would not provide to all. What this government wants to do is ensure that all airlines are given the level playing field that they deserve. Unlike members opposite who believe in chequebook government and playing favourites amongst businesses, we do not. We want to give all airlines a fair go, and that includes Qantas. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER: Manager of Opposition Business, you have already had one point of order on relevance; you cannot have two. Mr Burke: You agreed with my ruling, Madam Speaker, and the Prime Minister defied it. If it assists the Prime Minister, I seek leave to table— The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr Burke: I just sought leave to table a document. Why can't I do that at the end of an answer? The SPEAKER: You can. Is leave given? Mr Pyne: No. The SPEAKER: Leave is not given. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, you have not allowed me to say what the document is. I don't know if they can tell when I hold it up, but I think it is reasonable for me to explain what the document is. The SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the House intend to give leave to this document— Mr BURKE: Regardless of what it is? The SPEAKER: regardless of what it is? Mr Pyne: No. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has said that, regardless of what it is, he is not giving leave. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr Burke: Is it now the case that, against all the traditions of this House, we are no longer allowed to say what the document is? Because that is an extraordinary ruling inconsistent with— The SPEAKER: It is not a ruling. Mr Burke: every single precedent set by people who have sat in that chair. The SPEAKER: It is not a ruling. We will see what happens next time. Mr Burke: If there is no ruling, I seek leave to table the four principles that were laid down by the Treasurer. The SPEAKER: Is leave given? Mr Pyne: No, it is not. The SPEAKER: Leave is not given.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 2:50pm:

skippy. wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:37pm: Are all these AP threads meant to distract us from the fact that AP lied about the wreckage of the lost Malaysian flight?                                    :-/ I think he wants to bury the story about the basher having his worst week yet as PM that is even doing the rounds in News lmd papers. Rudd isn't PM anymore and hasn't been in the news for a while??? :-?

Oh really dear? Oh well seeing as though you want to be a petulant little sook bag here is the link and some quotes from the news lmd report about the women basher being so on the nose, suck it up princess plenty more to come, office girl.

http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-battered-and-ridiculed-over-knighthoods-and-changes-to-racial-discrimination-act/story-fncynjr2-1226866294708

Quote:

TONY Abbott is having his worst week since he became Prime Minister because he is straying from the sacred “core issues” of his party.

.


Quote:

The Prime Minister’s rash plan to change the Racial Discrimination Act and his revival of knighthoods were not treasured policies of the Liberal Party waiting for implementation.They were personal indulgences Mr Abbott shared with a bunch of blokes he occasionally had a beer with

These are just comments,FROM THE LIBERAL PARTY GAZZET Imagine what the Bi partisan papers are saying, office skirt??  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bam wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 6:36pm:

It does not take long to find examples from the House Hansard. March 3 2014, Shorten to Abbott, Qantas Quote: Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:13): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Treasurer confirmed on 13 February that Qantas had met each of the Treasurer's four preconditions for government involvement in individual enterprises. Prime Minister, if Qantas has met the Treasurer's test, why will the government not act? Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:13): We are more than happy, as the Treasurer has abundantly made clear, to take the shackles off Qantas. That is what we want to do. We want to get rid of the carbon tax, which is a $100 million-plus hit on Qantas jobs, and we do want to remove from Qantas the shackles placed upon it by the Qantas Sale Act. Again I say to Leader of the Opposition: if he is fair dinkum about wanting to help the workers at Qantas, if he is fair dinkum about wanting to do the right thing by Qantas—make Qantas more competitive and more efficient in these difficult days—he should work with the government to decouple the bills in the Senate so that this very day we can free all of the airlines of this country from the carbon tax. The only thing stopping that is the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question referred specifically to the Treasurer's four preconditions, and the Prime Minister is going absolutely nowhere near it. The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is addressing the issue that was raised in the question, but it would be good if he would address it specifically. Mr ABBOTT: What members opposite essentially want the government to do is provide to one airline what we would not provide to all. What this government wants to do is ensure that all airlines are given the level playing field that they deserve. Unlike members opposite who believe in chequebook government and playing favourites amongst businesses, we do not. We want to give all airlines a fair go, and that includes Qantas. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER: Manager of Opposition Business, you have already had one point of order on relevance; you cannot have two. Mr Burke: You agreed with my ruling, Madam Speaker, and the Prime Minister defied it. If it assists the Prime Minister, I seek leave to table— The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr Burke: I just sought leave to table a document. Why can't I do that at the end of an answer? The SPEAKER: You can. Is leave given? Mr Pyne: No. The SPEAKER: Leave is not given. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, you have not allowed me to say what the document is. I don't know if they can tell when I hold it up, but I think it is reasonable for me to explain what the document is. The SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the House intend to give leave to this document— Mr BURKE: Regardless of what it is? The SPEAKER: regardless of what it is? Mr Pyne: No. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has said that, regardless of what it is, he is not giving leave. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr Burke: Is it now the case that, against all the traditions of this House, we are no longer allowed to say what the document is? Because that is an extraordinary ruling inconsistent with— The SPEAKER: It is not a ruling. Mr Burke: every single precedent set by people who have sat in that chair. The SPEAKER: It is not a ruling. We will see what happens next time. Mr Burke: If there is no ruling, I seek leave to table the four principles that were laid down by the Treasurer. The SPEAKER: Is leave given? Mr Pyne: No, it is not. The SPEAKER: Leave is not given.

You gonna table every time Anna Burke tossed out a Coalition member and allowed questions to go unanswered?  I mean to say we have to be fair about this don't we?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 5:26pm:

Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:09pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:10pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 3:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit. No it tells you how biased and childish this bunch of ALP members are. Dreyfus has deserved the boot many times and not got it under a Labor speakership. Anna Burke was very biased and allowed the ALP to do whatever they pleased and continually fail to answer questions. She has no credibility or right to criticise anyone. Care to show us examples, oh dear conservative leftie? Or are you doing your usual finger at lips and shake routine? Perhaps you missed parliament on tv under Burke. So why are you here debating stuff you are ignorant of. I saw it I know how biased she was even Jenkins was biased but you didn't see the Coalition arc up the way these prats do.  Slipper was probably the best of the 3 of them under Labor.  Bishop is IMO not doing a good job, but then they aren't making her life easy are they. I want examples, teaspoon.  Your usual "I am going to substantiate with my own broad opinion" isn't going to work. Like I said, Yes, they are ALL biased. Which is why when someone comes out and actually points it out like they have, surely it must mean she is absolutely disgracefully biased. I can't help it if you are so badly served you don't know how bad Burke was.  not my problem. You can read hansard or watch youtube or buy yourself a Wayback machine...  If you are so biased you can't see what is happening then there is also the question to be asked...  what's the point of telling you anything.  :D :D :D So in other words you  have nothing. Have a nice day, as usual your stupidity is highlighted for everyone.

I'm guessing that's an example of the personal abuse they talk about in feedback that you are not allowed here.

Just because you have failed to recognise or have failed to see in the past evidence of political bias by the labor Speakers which was abundant BTW...  doesn't make me or anyone who points it out wrong.

It just makes you ignorant of the facts or dishonest.  :D

No Speaker has been as biased as Broomhilda.

Bam wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 6:18pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:17pm: Watching Speakers in general has been a tortuous experience as they oscillate between bias and error with some disinterest and slumber to keep up the variety.  Jenkins was the best of the most recent batch but hardly stellar.  Slipper was an appalling person and so his speakership was tainted before he started and respect is essential to the position and he had none. Slipper was only perceived as tainted because his own party sought to smear him. As a Speaker he was reasonable. Jenkins was also a decent Speaker. Quote: I like the idea of an unbiased non-political Speaker but in practice, how do you achieve that? The G-G is also not allowed to be part of a political party but did that stop Bob Hawke from appointing Bill the Policeman to the position?  No, he simply resigned from the ALP the day he accepted the position. The British Parliament has a tradition where a Speaker resigns from their party when they are appointed, and the major parties do not stand candidates in the Speaker's seat. In the early days of Federal Parliament, the Australian Parliament followed a similar tradition. The first Speaker, was an independent who was often elected unopposed.

I think the reasons Slipper was tainted were a bit more substantial that you seem to grant.  He has had criminal and civil charges filed against him and had a long and unsavoury history or rorting travel expenses. He was also tainted by the political process in which he abandoned his own party to pursue the Speakership.  By any estimation he was a very tainted choice.

Quote:

..and unsavoury history or rorting travel expenses.

Evidence please, and when you provide same, please distinguish Slipper's 'rorts' from............oh.............let's take......say...........Abbott's.

Burke was pretty much on par with bishop.

Bishop may be a bit more, but it's a close call.

The simian has also rorted his travel allowance.

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 7:19pm:

Quote: ..and unsavoury history or rorting travel expenses. Evidence please, and when you provide same, please distinguish Slipper's 'rorts' from............oh.............let's take......say...........Abbott's.

So another of the bully-boy tactics by demanding proof of facts that are already in the public domain and well-known? He was required to repay significant amounts by the Department of Finance on multiple occasions.

Now if you wish to debate properly it would be helpful to stipulate to facts - however inconvenient - that are demonstrably true rather than employ the bully boy tactics of demanding 'proof' at every stage. It is beneath those debaters of substance.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 7:20pm:

The simian has also rorted his travel allowance.

Your disparaging references demean only you.  But the most important fact for you must be 'is Abbott faster than fibre optic cable'.  As far as I can tell it is the one string in your very old and out-of-tune fiddle.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 7:10pm:

No Speaker has been as biased as Broomhilda.

I think they miss the point that she has taken it to a whole new level by not even pretending to be a bit balanced.

Labor's petulance on display

Following the horrendous display of the Abbott opposition they have no right to complain.

In fact the only performance I have seen worse than the Abbott opposition is the Abbott Government, they seem to have turned bad behaviour into an art form...

Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 7:19pm: Quote: ..and unsavoury history or rorting travel expenses. Evidence please, and when you provide same, please distinguish Slipper's 'rorts' from............oh.............let's take......say...........Abbott's. So another of the bully-boy tactics by demanding proof of facts that are already in the public domain and well-known? He was required to repay significant amounts by the Department of Finance on multiple occasions. Now if you wish to debate properly it would be helpful to stipulate to facts - however inconvenient - that are demonstrably true rather than employ the bully boy tactics of demanding 'proof' at every stage. It is beneath those debaters of substance.

Soooo.....no evidence especially how you distinguish what Slipper repaid from what Abbott, Joyce, etc etc etc repaid.

Funny how you equate me asking for some evidence to support your allegations with 'bullying.'  Even funnier that you would know anything about 'debaters of substance.'  Do you know any in your World?  Invite them here if so.  Gawd knows the right Wing of the Inn is in dire need of any assistance you can muster for them.

;)

Can anyone tell me how Burke was any better/less biased?

john_g wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 8:08pm:

Can anyone tell me how Burke was any better/less biased?

I'm sure she was partisan Mr G......but never had I felt such a cringe as I do with Big Jobs in the Chair.

You?

Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 7:15pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 6:18pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:17pm: Watching Speakers in general has been a tortuous experience as they oscillate between bias and error with some disinterest and slumber to keep up the variety.  Jenkins was the best of the most recent batch but hardly stellar.  Slipper was an appalling person and so his speakership was tainted before he started and respect is essential to the position and he had none. Slipper was only perceived as tainted because his own party sought to smear him. As a Speaker he was reasonable. Jenkins was also a decent Speaker. Quote: I like the idea of an unbiased non-political Speaker but in practice, how do you achieve that? The G-G is also not allowed to be part of a political party but did that stop Bob Hawke from appointing Bill the Policeman to the position?  No, he simply resigned from the ALP the day he accepted the position. The British Parliament has a tradition where a Speaker resigns from their party when they are appointed, and the major parties do not stand candidates in the Speaker's seat. In the early days of Federal Parliament, the Australian Parliament followed a similar tradition. The first Speaker, was an independent who was often elected unopposed. I think the reasons Slipper was tainted were a bit more substantial that you seem to grant.  He has had criminal and civil charges filed against him

Do you deny the presumption of innocence?

Numerous politicians from across the political spectrum have had dodgy claims for greater amounts, but only Slipper got referred to the authorities due to the machinations of the Liberal party. Why was only Slipper denied the process of the Minchin Protocol?


Quote:

and had a long and unsavoury history or rorting travel expenses.

He was a member of the Liberal party at the time, for whom claiming dodgy travel allowances was business as usual. How many times have the Liberals been caught out in the past year for claiming attendance at weddings as "official business"?


Quote:

He was also tainted by the political process in which he abandoned his own party to pursue the Speakership.

A preposterous argument, considering that resigning from a political party and sitting as an independent is standard operating procedure for Speakers in the British House of Commons.

CHRISTIAN KERR THE AUSTRALIAN SEPTEMBER 16, 2013


Quote:

Mr Abbott, who once described himself as the "ideological love-child of John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop", praised her experience and profile in putting her name forward yesterday. "I want to bring some dignity back to the parliament and that means a Speaker who can control the parliament and who can act without fear nor favour," he said. "And I want someone who is as tough on the government as on the opposition, because I think the people expect a parliament which is a genuine debating chamber and not just a chamber where the government bludgeons the opposition."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/bronwyn-bishop-to-be-speaker-with-tony-abbotts-support/story-fn9qr68y-1226719672169

Another example of an Abbott lie.......

;)

Lobo wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 8:20pm:

CHRISTIAN KERR THE AUSTRALIAN SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 Quote: Mr Abbott, who once described himself as the "ideological love-child of John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop", praised her experience and profile in putting her name forward yesterday. "I want to bring some dignity back to the parliament and that means a Speaker who can control the parliament and who can act without fear nor favour," he said. "And I want someone who is as tough on the government as on the opposition, because I think the people expect a parliament which is a genuine debating chamber and not just a chamber where the government bludgeons the opposition." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/bronwyn-bishop-to-be-speaker-with-tony-abbotts-support/story-fn9qr68y-1226719672169 Another example of an Abbott lie....... ;)

Yeas....the score so far.......99/0.

'HILARIOUS.'

Grendel wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 6:51pm:

You gonna table every time Anna Burke tossed out a Coalition member and allowed questions to go unanswered?  I mean to say we have to be fair about this don't we?

Burke is not the current Speaker. Bishop is.

Burke's conduct has been analysed already in prior discussions. Bishop's conduct is being questioned now.

Why are you trying to deflect and derail the discussion?

Are all these AP threads meant to distract us from the fact that AP lied about the wreckage of the lost Malaysian flight?

Why did you lie about that, AP?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 8:55pm:

Are all these AP threads meant to distract us from the fact that AP lied about the wreckage of the lost Malaysian flight? Why did you lie about that, AP?

I'd make that your signature, Mr Peccarry.

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 9:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 8:55pm: Are all these AP threads meant to distract us from the fact that AP lied about the wreckage of the lost Malaysian flight? Why did you lie about that, AP? I'd make that your signature, Mr Peccarry.

He still won't answer though.

AP, you are a liar and a coward.

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 8:02pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 7:36pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 7:19pm: Quote: ..and unsavoury history or rorting travel expenses. Evidence please, and when you provide same, please distinguish Slipper's 'rorts' from............oh.............let's take......say...........Abbott's. So another of the bully-boy tactics by demanding proof of facts that are already in the public domain and well-known? He was required to repay significant amounts by the Department of Finance on multiple occasions. Now if you wish to debate properly it would be helpful to stipulate to facts - however inconvenient - that are demonstrably true rather than employ the bully boy tactics of demanding 'proof' at every stage. It is beneath those debaters of substance. Soooo.....no evidence especially how you distinguish what Slipper repaid from what Abbott, Joyce, etc etc etc repaid. Funny how you equate me asking for some evidence to support your allegations with 'bullying.'  Even funnier that you would know anything about 'debaters of substance.'  Do you know any in your World?  Invite them here if so.  Gawd knows the right Wing of the Inn is in dire need of any assistance you can muster for them. ;)

I see you are the person who will engage in infinite regression to the world of pedantry and argument about the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin.  Pretend all you like that Slipper is a man of unimpeachable character while the rest of us look on and laugh.

Come back when you want to debate something of substance and away from your ivory tower of arrogance.

Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 9:22pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 8:02pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 7:36pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 7:19pm: Quote: ..and unsavoury history or rorting travel expenses. Evidence please, and when you provide same, please distinguish Slipper's 'rorts' from............oh.............let's take......say...........Abbott's. So another of the bully-boy tactics by demanding proof of facts that are already in the public domain and well-known? He was required to repay significant amounts by the Department of Finance on multiple occasions. Now if you wish to debate properly it would be helpful to stipulate to facts - however inconvenient - that are demonstrably true rather than employ the bully boy tactics of demanding 'proof' at every stage. It is beneath those debaters of substance. Soooo.....no evidence especially how you distinguish what Slipper repaid from what Abbott, Joyce, etc etc etc repaid. Funny how you equate me asking for some evidence to support your allegations with 'bullying.'  Even funnier that you would know anything about 'debaters of substance.'  Do you know any in your World?  Invite them here if so.  Gawd knows the right Wing of the Inn is in dire need of any assistance you can muster for them. ;) I see you are the person who will engage in infinite regression to the world of pedantry and argument about the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin.  Pretend all you like that Slipper is a man of unimpeachable character while the rest of us look on and laugh. Come back when you want to debate something of substance and away from your ivory tower of arrogance.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/a37f1d5f9e8473f15ccbd63fb3f13226/tumblr_inline_n21lrlE0vg1qh24qf.jpg


You're gonna need this:


http://www.ozpharmacyonline.com.au/images/Vaseline%20White%20Petroleum%20Jelly%20100g.jpg

Quote:

I see you are the person who will engage in infinite regression to the world of pedantry and argument about the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin.  Pretend all you like that Slipper is a man of unimpeachable character while the rest of us look on and laugh. Come back when you want to debate something of substance and away from your ivory tower of arrogance.

You've been here since 12.39 pm today and racked up almost 50 posts.  You have swallowed a dictionary, attacked, ridiculed, and I already want to buy you at my price and sell at yours.

Dear Chap.....let's get back to the Inn where we started.  What did Slipper do that Abbott and many others did not......in the rorts stakes?

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 9:31pm:

Quote: I see you are the person who will engage in infinite regression to the world of pedantry and argument about the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin.  Pretend all you like that Slipper is a man of unimpeachable character while the rest of us look on and laugh. Come back when you want to debate something of substance and away from your ivory tower of arrogance. You been here since 12.39 pm today and racked up almost 50 posts.  You have swallowed a dictionary, attacked, ridiculed, and I already want to buy you at my price and sell at yours. Dear Chap.....let's get back to the Inn where we started.  What did Slipper do that Abbott and many others did not......in the rorts stakes?

And most of those I've seen, have been trolling someone or other.

Seems to have been a sudden influx of these 'new' members over the past few days... >:( >:( >:(

Funny - now the thread has reached five pages and no one from the right has answered the question I asked them on the first page....

Frances wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

Funny - now the thread has reached five pages and no one from the right has answered the question I asked them on the first page....

And they won't, either.  >:(

Not a single righty has answered my questions on economics either. Big on criticising Swan, slow to answer a couple questions.

And they always mention stuff long disproved. Righties are dumb.

Kat wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 5:20pm:

mozzaok wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:35pm: I have seen Bronwyn Bishop as speaker a few times, and I have to admit I was surprised at how blatantly she displayed her bias. She does not even pretend to be fair or even handed, which does seem to give legitimacy to Labor putting forward the motion they did, and in the words they chose to do so. I know people disparage Slipper for his previous transgressions, but you could see he really did try to fulfill the role of speaker as fairly, and honorably as he could, and I think it must be a long time since we have had such a cavalier disdain for the honour needed in the role of speaker, as displayed by Bishop. Good post. Agreed.

Do you both agree that Anna Burke was blatantly biased too?
If not...  you're both biased and have no credibility

Not a single Speaker has been as biased as Broomhilda.

99:0

Bam wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 6:07pm:

Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:10pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 3:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit. No it tells you how biased and childish this bunch of ALP members are. Dreyfus has deserved the boot many times and not got it under a Labor speakership. Anna Burke was very biased and allowed the ALP to do whatever they pleased and continually fail to answer questions. She has no credibility or right to criticise anyone. Care to show us examples, oh dear conservative leftie?  Or are you doing your usual finger at lips and shake routine? Perhaps you missed parliament on tv under Burke. So why are you here debating stuff you are ignorant of. I saw it I know how biased she was even Jenkins was biased but you didn't see the Coalition arc up the way these prats do. That's not true. yes it is... In the last parliament, the Coalition moved to suspend standing orders in almost every sitting week of the last parliament, far more than is usual. You tell me that every occasion was justified. I already made my point you seem to be avoiding the main one on purpose. In the last Parliament, The Coalition denied pairs for stupid reasons - the first time any Federal Opposition did that since before the last time that the United Australia Party was in office. You tell me that every denial of a pair was justified. During this parliament, this crap Speaker has denied points of order before they have even been made and indulged in numerous other examples of bias. Calling "Madam Speaker" is grounds for ejection! Really! You tell me that every ejection from Parliament was justified and every denial of points of order was justified.  Did I say she was a great Speaker?  No... Did I say she was a good speaker?  No.  your point would be then?????   So far, Anna Burke was the most blatantly biased Speaker I've ever seen...  Bishop has a way to go to match her yet.

99:0

I don’t think a single POO has been allowed by the senile old bat.

Doesn’t recognise an Oppn member until the minister has finished an answer—not always but this crap happens far too often.

john_g wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 8:08pm:

Can anyone tell me how Burke was any better/less biased?

She wasn't and she allowed every question to go unanswered....

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 8:24pm:

Lobo wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 8:20pm: CHRISTIAN KERR THE AUSTRALIAN SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 Quote: Mr Abbott, who once described himself as the "ideological love-child of John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop", praised her experience and profile in putting her name forward yesterday. "I want to bring some dignity back to the parliament and that means a Speaker who can control the parliament and who can act without fear nor favour," he said. "And I want someone who is as tough on the government as on the opposition, because I think the people expect a parliament which is a genuine debating chamber and not just a chamber where the government bludgeons the opposition." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/bronwyn-bishop-to-be-speaker-with-tony-abbotts-support/story-fn9qr68y-1226719672169 Another example of an Abbott lie....... ;) Yeas....the score so far.......99/0. 'HILARIOUS.'

What was Burke's score Aussie?  hmmmm ::)

Grendel wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 9:42pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:20pm: mozzaok wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:35pm: I have seen Bronwyn Bishop as speaker a few times, and I have to admit I was surprised at how blatantly she displayed her bias. She does not even pretend to be fair or even handed, which does seem to give legitimacy to Labor putting forward the motion they did, and in the words they chose to do so. I know people disparage Slipper for his previous transgressions, but you could see he really did try to fulfill the role of speaker as fairly, and honorably as he could, and I think it must be a long time since we have had such a cavalier disdain for the honour needed in the role of speaker, as displayed by Bishop. Good post. Agreed. Do you both agree that Anna Burke was blatantly biased too? If not...  you're both biased and have no credibility

Always thought Burke was biased, and am on record on this forum stating as much.

But by no stretch was she ever as bad, or as consistently bad, as this cow is.

Bam wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 8:27pm:

Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 6:51pm: You gonna table every time Anna Burke tossed out a Coalition member and allowed questions to go unanswered?  I mean to say we have to be fair about this don't we? Burke is not the current Speaker. Bishop is. Burke's conduct has been analysed already in prior discussions. Bishop's conduct is being questioned now. Why are you trying to deflect and derail the discussion?

I'm not the one ignoring the most recent comparable...  you are and now you want to rule it out  ;D ;D ;D :D

Grendel wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 9:52pm:

john_g wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 8:08pm: Can anyone tell me how Burke was any better/less biased? She wasn't and she allowed every question to go unanswered....

Burke, unlike Broomhilda, did tell Ministers to address the question.

Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 9:22pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 8:02pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 7:36pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 7:19pm: Quote: ..and unsavoury history or rorting travel expenses. Evidence please, and when you provide same, please distinguish Slipper's 'rorts' from............oh.............let's take......say...........Abbott's. So another of the bully-boy tactics by demanding proof of facts that are already in the public domain and well-known? He was required to repay significant amounts by the Department of Finance on multiple occasions. Now if you wish to debate properly it would be helpful to stipulate to facts - however inconvenient - that are demonstrably true rather than employ the bully boy tactics of demanding 'proof' at every stage. It is beneath those debaters of substance. Soooo.....no evidence especially how you distinguish what Slipper repaid from what Abbott, Joyce, etc etc etc repaid. Funny how you equate me asking for some evidence to support your allegations with 'bullying.'  Even funnier that you would know anything about 'debaters of substance.'  Do you know any in your World?  Invite them here if so.  Gawd knows the right Wing of the Inn is in dire need of any assistance you can muster for them. ;) I see you are the person who will engage in infinite regression to the world of pedantry and argument about the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin.  Pretend all you like that Slipper is a man of unimpeachable character while the rest of us look on and laugh. Come back when you want to debate something of substance and away from your ivory tower of arrogance.

Bread and Butter...  meet Aussie...  ::)

Grendel wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 9:49pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 6:07pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:10pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 3:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit. No it tells you how biased and childish this bunch of ALP members are. Dreyfus has deserved the boot many times and not got it under a Labor speakership. Anna Burke was very biased and allowed the ALP to do whatever they pleased and continually fail to answer questions. She has no credibility or right to criticise anyone. Care to show us examples, oh dear conservative leftie?  Or are you doing your usual finger at lips and shake routine? Perhaps you missed parliament on tv under Burke. So why are you here debating stuff you are ignorant of. I saw it I know how biased she was even Jenkins was biased but you didn't see the Coalition arc up the way these prats do. That's not true. yes it is... In the last parliament, the Coalition moved to suspend standing orders in almost every sitting week of the last parliament, far more than is usual. You tell me that every occasion was justified. I already made my point you seem to be avoiding the main one on purpose. In the last Parliament, The Coalition denied pairs for stupid reasons - the first time any Federal Opposition did that since before the last time that the United Australia Party was in office. You tell me that every denial of a pair was justified. During this parliament, this crap Speaker has denied points of order before they have even been made and indulged in numerous other examples of bias. Calling "Madam Speaker" is grounds for ejection! Really! You tell me that every ejection from Parliament was justified and every denial of points of order was justified.  Did I say she was a great Speaker?  No... Did I say she was a good speaker?  No.  your point would be then?????   So far, Anna Burke was the most blatantly biased Speaker I've ever seen...  Bishop has a way to go to match her yet.

Rudd, Gillard, Rudd.....they are gone Grendel as is Burke.  If it gets you over a speed bump......I'll say out loud....."I thought Burke was pathetic as a Speaker."

Good.  Fast forward to the present.  I reckon Big Jobs is corrupt as a Speaker.  She has taken "pathetic, incompetence, partisanship, bias and vengeance" to a completely new corrupt level.  Do you agree, Elde Fruit?

Yes or no.  Choose your one word response, please.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 9:54pm:

Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 9:52pm: john_g wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 8:08pm: Can anyone tell me how Burke was any better/less biased? She wasn't and she allowed every question to go unanswered.... Burke, unlike Broomhilda, did tell Ministers to address the question.

yet they ignored her and the questions remained unanswered. ::) ::) ::)  Seen it way too many times.

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 10:00pm:

Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 9:49pm: Bam wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 6:07pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:10pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 3:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit. No it tells you how biased and childish this bunch of ALP members are. Dreyfus has deserved the boot many times and not got it under a Labor speakership. Anna Burke was very biased and allowed the ALP to do whatever they pleased and continually fail to answer questions. She has no credibility or right to criticise anyone. Care to show us examples, oh dear conservative leftie?  Or are you doing your usual finger at lips and shake routine? Perhaps you missed parliament on tv under Burke. So why are you here debating stuff you are ignorant of. I saw it I know how biased she was even Jenkins was biased but you didn't see the Coalition arc up the way these prats do. That's not true. yes it is... In the last parliament, the Coalition moved to suspend standing orders in almost every sitting week of the last parliament, far more than is usual. You tell me that every occasion was justified. I already made my point you seem to be avoiding the main one on purpose. In the last Parliament, The Coalition denied pairs for stupid reasons - the first time any Federal Opposition did that since before the last time that the United Australia Party was in office. You tell me that every denial of a pair was justified. During this parliament, this crap Speaker has denied points of order before they have even been made and indulged in numerous other examples of bias. Calling "Madam Speaker" is grounds for ejection! Really! You tell me that every ejection from Parliament was justified and every denial of points of order was justified.  Did I say she was a great Speaker?  No... Did I say she was a good speaker?  No.  your point would be then?????   So far, Anna Burke was the most blatantly biased Speaker I've ever seen...  Bishop has a way to go to match her yet. Rudd, Gillard, Rudd.....they are gone Grendel as is Burke.  If it gets you over a speed bump......I'll say out loud....."I thought Burke was pathetic as a Speaker." Good.  Fast forward to the present.  I reckon Big Jobs is corrupt as a Speaker.  She has taken "pathetic, incompetence, partisanship, bias and vengeance" to a completely new corrupt level.  Do you agree, Elde Fruit? Yes or no.  Choose your one word response, please.

You would like 1 word...  easy for you to understand and misinterpret, yet not at all satisfactory as an answer.
I already made several comments about Bishop I suggest instead of jumping in like a mindless pedant you actually read stuff.  ::) ::) ::)

Only so much a Speaker can do. Yet Burke did it and Broomhilda doesn’t.

Burke did nothing much except toss out the opposition.
Especially Christopher Pyne.

Quote:

Mr Pyne said it was the reality for oppositions that "you do get thrown out of Parliament more often than members of the Government". "I hold the record for being ejected from this place by speakers in the Parliament," Mr Pyne told the House. "I never complained. I never complained. I didn't stand up like a great big sook like the Manager of Opposition Business did today."

I think Tony Burke is doing a poor job too.  He and labor are setting new records for hubris.

I watch question time yesterday and Shorten ask Abbott a question about defence force kids getting their money cut.

All Abbott answer was about labor not letting the repeal of the carbon tax and mining tax through the senate nothing about the defence force kids money getting cut.

Labor ask Bishop to tell Abbott to answer the question put to him and she carry on like a pork chop.

Grendel wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 10:10pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 10:00pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 9:49pm: Bam wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 6:07pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:10pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 3:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit. No it tells you how biased and childish this bunch of ALP members are. Dreyfus has deserved the boot many times and not got it under a Labor speakership. Anna Burke was very biased and allowed the ALP to do whatever they pleased and continually fail to answer questions. She has no credibility or right to criticise anyone. Care to show us examples, oh dear conservative leftie?  Or are you doing your usual finger at lips and shake routine? Perhaps you missed parliament on tv under Burke. So why are you here debating stuff you are ignorant of. I saw it I know how biased she was even Jenkins was biased but you didn't see the Coalition arc up the way these prats do. That's not true. yes it is... In the last parliament, the Coalition moved to suspend standing orders in almost every sitting week of the last parliament, far more than is usual. You tell me that every occasion was justified. I already made my point you seem to be avoiding the main one on purpose. In the last Parliament, The Coalition denied pairs for stupid reasons - the first time any Federal Opposition did that since before the last time that the United Australia Party was in office. You tell me that every denial of a pair was justified. During this parliament, this crap Speaker has denied points of order before they have even been made and indulged in numerous other examples of bias. Calling "Madam Speaker" is grounds for ejection! Really! You tell me that every ejection from Parliament was justified and every denial of points of order was justified.  Did I say she was a great Speaker?  No... Did I say she was a good speaker?  No.  your point would be then?????   So far, Anna Burke was the most blatantly biased Speaker I've ever seen...  Bishop has a way to go to match her yet. Rudd, Gillard, Rudd.....they are gone Grendel as is Burke.  If it gets you over a speed bump......I'll say out loud....."I thought Burke was pathetic as a Speaker." Good.  Fast forward to the present.  I reckon Big Jobs is corrupt as a Speaker.  She has taken "pathetic, incompetence, partisanship, bias and vengeance" to a completely new corrupt level.  Do you agree, Elde Fruit? Yes or no.  Choose your one word response, please. You would like 1 word...  easy for you to understand and misinterpret, yet not at all satisfactory as an answer. I already made several comments about Bishop I suggest instead of jumping in like a mindless pedant you actually read stuff.  ::) ::) ::)

Yeas, I'd like one word, either a yes or a no.  You can't bring yourself to do it, can you?

"If you don't know the meaning of it ~ look it up."

Pyne is a pratt, he and the simian wanted QT rowdy to give an appearance of a chaotic govt.

Burke did kick govt members out as well.

Slipper was the best Speaker.

John S wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 10:18pm:

I watch question time yesterday and Shorten ask Abbott a question about defence force kids getting their money cut. All Abbott answer was about labor not letting the repeal of the carbon tax and mining tax through the senate nothing about the defence force kids money getting cut. Labor ask Bishop to tell Abbott to answer the question put to him and she carry on like a pork chop.

They're a travesty, a pathetic caricature of a government.

And more and more people by the day are waking up to them.

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 9:31pm:

Quote: I see you are the person who will engage in infinite regression to the world of pedantry and argument about the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin.  Pretend all you like that Slipper is a man of unimpeachable character while the rest of us look on and laugh. Come back when you want to debate something of substance and away from your ivory tower of arrogance. You've been here since 12.39 pm today and racked up almost 50 posts.  You have swallowed a dictionary, attacked, ridiculed, and I already want to buy you at my price and sell at yours. Dear Chap.....let's get back to the Inn where we started.  What did Slipper do that Abbott and many others did not......in the rorts stakes?

Does quantity of posting intrinsically imply lack of quality? Perhaps I have a lot of time and nothing better to do today or perhaps I am capable of thinking not only often but productively?  50 statements on any topic in a day might daunt your intellect but where I come from, most children could exceed that.

That why your posts are so childish?  ;D

Quote:

..but where I come from, most children could exceed that.

Goodo.  I get it now!  No wuckers.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 10:26pm:

That why your posts are so childish?  ;D

You could not, if you had spent hours honing your words, have come up with anything that so cogently explains the weakness of every post I have seen you deliver.

I have overheard primary school children deliver better insults than that.

Diddums is hurt.

So true...

---

Strange.  It seems that Bread and Dripping Butter has come here to post opinions and statements of the facts as he sees them, but without anything to back them up.  When asked for evidence, he responds by saying what amounts to "Look it up yourself" and, if pushed, falls back on personal attacks and ad hominems.  I think we've seen all this before.....

Bread and dripping, never see that anywhere anymore. Damn food nazis!

Frances wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 11:03pm:

Strange.  It seems that Bread and Dripping Butter has come here to post opinions and statements of the facts as he sees them, but without anything to back them up.  When asked for evidence, he responds by saying what amounts to "Look it up yourself" and, if pushed, falls back on personal attacks and ad hominems.  I think we've seen all this before.....

yes, you would have seen it before.  It might have been your parents telling you to take your head out of a computer and go outside and observe the actual world as it is rather than conclude that google and Wikipedia is all you ever need.

I am more than happy to provide evidence, however I am unwilling to repeatedly 'prove' that which needs no proof. Good debating will typically stipulate to that which is already well known and accepted.  Poor debating however, resorts to demanding the opponent prove conclusively every point in an attempt to bog down a debate.  This is usually done because the opponent cannot debate effectively.  Another possibility is that the opponent genuinely wants proof because they are so lamentably uninformed or lumbered with so poor a memory that they cannot remember these facts. Neither example is a debater of any substance.

You haven’t offered proof in a single thread. You just advance opinions and won’t retreat from them when shown your facts are wrong.

Heh:


Quote:

Bronnie: Where’s the Member for Perth? Burke: At the Dispatch Box. Blind as well as deaf.

(PBX)

Retire the silly senile bitch, Tone. For her sake and yours.

Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 8:39am:

I am more than happy to provide evidence, however I am unwilling to repeatedly 'prove' that which needs no proof. Good debating will typically stipulate to that which is already well known and accepted.  Poor debating however, resorts to demanding the opponent prove conclusively every point in an attempt to bog down a debate.  This is usually done because the opponent cannot debate effectively.  Another possibility is that the opponent genuinely wants proof because they are so lamentably uninformed or lumbered with so poor a memory that they cannot remember these facts. Neither example is a debater of any substance.

A good debater would supply links to back up his argument otherwise it looks like he is telling porkys

Its difficult to try and educate the ignorant when you have the pile on mentality of a forum like this where ignorance is supported and cheered on at every step of the stupid.

jiminy cricket wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 9:06am:

Its difficult to try and educate the ignorant when you have the pile on mentality of a forum like this where ignorance is supported and cheered on at every step of the stupid.

Helps to have a decent argument and a few facts.

Here is a fact: 99:0

Another:
“Bronnie: Where’s the Member for Perth?

Burke: At the Dispatch Box.”

Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 7:19pm: Quote: ..and unsavoury history or rorting travel expenses. Evidence please, and when you provide same, please distinguish Slipper's 'rorts' from............oh.............let's take......say...........Abbott's. So another of the bully-boy tactics by demanding proof of facts that are already in the public domain and well-known? He was required to repay significant amounts by the Department of Finance on multiple occasions. Now if you wish to debate properly it would be helpful to stipulate to facts - however inconvenient - that are demonstrably true rather than employ the bully boy tactics of demanding 'proof' at every stage. It is beneath those debaters of substance.

God knows who you are B&B, but what you are is a self important buffoon. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Aussie's question was absolutely reasonable, and because you choose to obfuscate does not mean you actually answered it.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 9:10am:

God knows who you are B&B, but what you are is a self important buffoon. ;D ;D ;D ;D Aussie's question was absolutely reasonable, and because you choose to obfuscate does not mean you actually answered it.

He reminds me of blackadder that was a member about 6 months ago and come on here and abuse everyone that didn't agree with him.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 8:46am:

You haven’t offered proof in a single thread. You just advance opinions and won’t retreat from them when shown your facts are wrong.

Very few facts have been offered and in your case, have been uniquely wrong every time. Your technical expertise is truly dreadful as well as hopelessly jaundiced.

Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 9:24am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 8:46am: You haven’t offered proof in a single thread. You just advance opinions and won’t retreat from them when shown your facts are wrong. Very few facts have been offered and in your case, have been uniquely wrong every time. Your technical expertise is truly dreadful as well as hopelessly jaundiced.

Wow, you got some rose colored glasses on there, boy.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 9:10am:

Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 7:36pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 7:19pm: Quote: ..and unsavoury history or rorting travel expenses. Evidence please, and when you provide same, please distinguish Slipper's 'rorts' from............oh.............let's take......say...........Abbott's. So another of the bully-boy tactics by demanding proof of facts that are already in the public domain and well-known? He was required to repay significant amounts by the Department of Finance on multiple occasions. Now if you wish to debate properly it would be helpful to stipulate to facts - however inconvenient - that are demonstrably true rather than employ the bully boy tactics of demanding 'proof' at every stage. It is beneath those debaters of substance. God knows who you are B&B, but what you are is a self important buffoon. ;D ;D ;D ;D Aussie's question was absolutely reasonable, and because you choose to obfuscate does not mean you actually answered it.

So to address the issue, are you also going to pretend that Slippers long line of indiscretions including travel rorts are NOT public information and NOT well-known, especially on a politics forum? Does the fact he has actually been criminally charged with one such offence not something of which everyone here is clearly aware?

Of what value is it to 'prove' that which is already well known and accepted, unless of course you want to contend that until proven guilty in a court of law, Slipper's character remains unimpeachable? That level of proof would render almost every 'fact' presented here as inadmissible.

You should have seen the great Thommo defence of 2012. Its still ongoing with disbelief and excuses for behavior. They will trot out reams of pages from Independent Australia in a laughable attempt at defending the indefendable.

Grendel wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 9:42pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:20pm: mozzaok wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:35pm: I have seen Bronwyn Bishop as speaker a few times, and I have to admit I was surprised at how blatantly she displayed her bias. She does not even pretend to be fair or even handed, which does seem to give legitimacy to Labor putting forward the motion they did, and in the words they chose to do so. I know people disparage Slipper for his previous transgressions, but you could see he really did try to fulfill the role of speaker as fairly, and honorably as he could, and I think it must be a long time since we have had such a cavalier disdain for the honour needed in the role of speaker, as displayed by Bishop. Good post. Agreed. Do you both agree that Anna Burke was blatantly biased too? If not...  you're both biased and have no credibility

If Burke was so blatantly biased, why didn't Abbott move a motion of no confidence in her? With the tight numbers of the 43rd parliament, it would have had a chance of succeeding if she was too biased.

Do you know why Slipper resigned as Speaker? He had lost the confidence of the House; Oakeshott and Windsor saw him privately to tell him that they would support a no confidence motion against him if one were moved, so he resigned. Pledging support on confidence in the Government is not the same thing as providing confidence in the Government's choice of Speaker.

Grendel wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 9:52pm:

john_g wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 8:08pm: Can anyone tell me how Burke was any better/less biased? She wasn't and she allowed every question to go unanswered....

And ... BOOM! What little credibility you had left disappeared with this silly response.

For weeks, Australians have been calling the bias of the Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop into question. From across the spectrum – not just left, but also right (Sky News editor, Peter van Onselen has describer Bishop as “a disgraceful Speaker, plain and simple. A shocking selection”).

During Question Time yesterday, Tony Burke moved a motion to debate no confidence in the speaker. Leave was not granted by the Government. This was moved again two minutes later by Tony Burke.

Here is Tony Burke speech from Hansard

Anthony Albanese second the motion This is his speech from Hansard

In all fairness here is Christopher Pyne speech from Hansard


It should be noted, that despite the outrage the members of Opposition were reading from a prepared speech, so was Christopher Pyne.

Bam wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 9:39am:

Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 9:52pm: john_g wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 8:08pm: Can anyone tell me how Burke was any better/less biased? She wasn't and she allowed every question to go unanswered.... And ... BOOM! What little credibility you had left disappeared with this silly response.

                                           :-/

Grendel wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 9:49pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 6:07pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:10pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 3:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 2:43pm: Normally the speaker is biased, we know this. But for one side to actually come out and say they are the MOST biased? hmmm, tells me that she must be pretty biased.  Duchess Bishop must quit. No it tells you how biased and childish this bunch of ALP members are. Dreyfus has deserved the boot many times and not got it under a Labor speakership. Anna Burke was very biased and allowed the ALP to do whatever they pleased and continually fail to answer questions. She has no credibility or right to criticise anyone. Care to show us examples, oh dear conservative leftie?  Or are you doing your usual finger at lips and shake routine? Perhaps you missed parliament on tv under Burke. So why are you here debating stuff you are ignorant of. I saw it I know how biased she was even Jenkins was biased but you didn't see the Coalition arc up the way these prats do. That's not true. yes it is...

Considering that your credibility has already been shot to pieces with quite ridiculous pronouncements on this issue, I am disinclined to accept this without reliable proof from third-party sources.


Quote:

[quote]In the last parliament, the Coalition moved to suspend standing orders in almost every sitting week of the last parliament, far more than is usual. You tell me that every occasion was justified.

I already made my point you seem to be avoiding the main one on purpose.[/quote]
Says the poster who introduced irrelevancies in an obvious attempt to deflect the topic. It is you that is avoiding points, introduced irrelevancies regarding former Speaker Burke to derail the topic.

You have also refused to provide any evidence when asked.

I have addressed it in other places or others have already discussed it making it unnecessary for me to do so. Why repeat what others have said?

And despite your occasional claims to the contrary, you take the Coalition's line on almost every topic. Your adherence to the Coalition's narrow perspective is closer than many other right-leaning posters.


Quote:

[quote]In the last Parliament, The Coalition denied pairs for stupid reasons - the first time any Federal Opposition did that since before the last time that the United Australia Party was in office. You tell me that every denial of a pair was justified. During this parliament, this crap Speaker has denied points of order before they have even been made and indulged in numerous other examples of bias. Calling "Madam Speaker" is grounds for ejection! Really! You tell me that every ejection from Parliament was justified and every denial of points of order was justified.

Did I say she was a great Speaker?  No... Did I say she was a good speaker?  No.  your point would be then?????   So far, Anna Burke was the most blatantly biased Speaker I've ever seen...  Bishop has a way to go to match her yet.[/quote]
Let me spell it out for you very simply.

Bishop "named" an ALP member - a serious sanction that suspends him for 24 hours - for calling out "Madam Speaker". He used the proper form of address, yet was thrown out for it! That is quite a blatant display of bias.

You show me one example - just one will do - where Speaker Burke named a member for addressing her as "Madam Speaker". Or even one example where Speaker Burke asked someone to leave the chamber for addressing her as "Madam Speaker". Then your view that Burke was at least as biased as Bishop would have some weight.

To help you, here is the link to the House Hansard. Go for it.

Abbott tried to pull a no confidence motion on the last labor governemtn almost every week of parliament, and not a peep from armpit about the libs petulance .... says more about armpit than it does anyone else

and anyone who is claiming Bishop isn't biased has rocks on their head ... QT was already a laughing stock but somehow Bishop has managed to drag from the already low of in the gutters down to the sewers .... who'd have thought it could have gotten worse? Disgraceful behaviour from her

Speaker should be independant of any political party.

Bam wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 10:04am:

And despite your occasional claims to the contrary, you take the Coalition's line on almost every topic

almost? You give him far to much credit there King Bam, I've yet to see him say anything remotely negative about the libs .... :D :D :D

Couple of beauties: from Twitter:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjtEYQvCUAEnujP.jpg


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bjy29qWCEAASpzD.jpg

Biggus droopy Dikkus
http://lowres.jantoo.com/history-medieval-joust-jousting_match-laughs-knight-09030066_low.jpg

Bam wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 9:37am:

Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 9:42pm: Kat wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:20pm: mozzaok wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:35pm: I have seen Bronwyn Bishop as speaker a few times, and I have to admit I was surprised at how blatantly she displayed her bias. She does not even pretend to be fair or even handed, which does seem to give legitimacy to Labor putting forward the motion they did, and in the words they chose to do so. I know people disparage Slipper for his previous transgressions, but you could see he really did try to fulfill the role of speaker as fairly, and honorably as he could, and I think it must be a long time since we have had such a cavalier disdain for the honour needed in the role of speaker, as displayed by Bishop. Good post. Agreed. Do you both agree that Anna Burke was blatantly biased too? If not...  you're both biased and have no credibility If Burke was so blatantly biased, why didn't Abbott move a motion of no confidence in her? More adult and less intolerant.  With the tight numbers of the 43rd parliament, it would have had a chance of succeeding if she was too biased. Bulldust the 3 musketeers and the green saw labor safely by on every vote. Do you know why Slipper resigned as Speaker? He had lost the confidence of the House; Oakeshott and Windsor saw him privately to tell him that they would support a no confidence motion against him if one were moved, so he resigned. Pledging support on confidence in the Government is not the same thing as providing confidence in the Government's choice of Speaker.  Puhlease your point would be?  They replaced him as speaker... ::) ::) ::)

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 10:20pm:

Pyne is a pratt, he and the simian wanted QT rowdy to give an appearance of a chaotic govt. Burke did kick govt members out as well. Slipper was the best Speaker.

Oh goody  now how about coughing up the numbers then.

;D ;D ;D ;D
Bam wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 9:39am:

Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 9:52pm: john_g wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 8:08pm: Can anyone tell me how Burke was any better/less biased? She wasn't and she allowed every question to go unanswered.... And ... BOOM! What little credibility you had left disappeared with this silly response.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
prove it... :D :D :D

“The Mnister will return to the question” “The Minister will keep his answer reevant”

Two responses to relevance conspicuously missing from Broomhilda’s repertoire.

Lying and creating strawmen now eh bam...  how disappointing you've become in your desperation.


Quote:

You show me one example - just one will do - where Speaker Burke named a member for addressing her as "Madam Speaker".

I never said she did now did I...


Quote:

Or even one example where Speaker Burke asked someone to leave the chamber for addressing her as "Madam Speaker".

Ditto above and since when did she asked to be addressed as such?


Quote:

Then your view that Burke was at least as biased as Bishop would have some weight.

Oh it does and so far she is worse than Bishop her record clearly shows her tossing coalition members out willy nilly and allowing the government to push propaganda ridicule and not answer questions.
Now if that is happening when the boot is on the other foot it is hardly fair to cry foul now is it.  For the ALP, the Greens YOU or biased rusted-on supporters.

99:0

The bitch is biased as well as senile.

Grendel wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 11:28am:

Lying and creating strawmen now eh bam...  how disappointing you've become in your desperation. Quote: You show me one example - just one will do - where Speaker Burke named a member for addressing her as "Madam Speaker". I never said she did now did I... [quote]Or even one example where Speaker Burke asked someone to leave the chamber for addressing her as "Madam Speaker".

Ditto above and since when did she asked to be addressed as such?


Quote:

Then your view that Burke was at least as biased as Bishop would have some weight.

Oh it does and so far she is worse than Bishop her record clearly shows her tossing coalition members out willy nilly and allowing the government to push propaganda ridicule and not answer questions.
Now if that is happening when the boot is on the other foot it is hardly fair to cry foul now is it.  For the ALP, the Greens YOU or biased rusted-on supporters.[/quote]
As expected, you refused to discuss the matter in good faith. Not surprising considering you can't back up what you say with the slightest shred of proof.

Discussing this with you is like trying to hunt down a cockroach.

Grendel wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 11:18am:

Bam wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 9:37am: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 9:42pm: Kat wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:20pm: mozzaok wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:35pm: I have seen Bronwyn Bishop as speaker a few times, and I have to admit I was surprised at how blatantly she displayed her bias. She does not even pretend to be fair or even handed, which does seem to give legitimacy to Labor putting forward the motion they did, and in the words they chose to do so. I know people disparage Slipper for his previous transgressions, but you could see he really did try to fulfill the role of speaker as fairly, and honorably as he could, and I think it must be a long time since we have had such a cavalier disdain for the honour needed in the role of speaker, as displayed by Bishop. Good post. Agreed. Do you both agree that Anna Burke was blatantly biased too? If not...  you're both biased and have no credibility If Burke was so blatantly biased, why didn't Abbott move a motion of no confidence in her? More adult and less intolerant.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Abbott is about as adult as a two-year-old who's been denied treats in a supermarket.


Quote:

[quote]With the tight numbers of the 43rd parliament, it would have had a chance of succeeding if she was too biased. Bulldust the 3 musketeers and the green saw labor safely by on every vote. Do you know why Slipper resigned as Speaker? He had lost the confidence of the House; Oakeshott and Windsor saw him privately to tell him that they would support a no confidence motion against him if one were moved, so he resigned. Pledging support on confidence in the Government is not the same thing as providing confidence in the Government's choice of Speaker.  Puhlease your point would be?  They replaced him as speaker... ::) ::) ::)

[/quote]
Slipper resigned because he did not have the numbers. That refutes your silliness about the three musketeers.

Could someone please fill me in on the Madam Speaker thing? Doesn't Bishop like being called that??

Test

Grendel wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 11:28am:

Lying and creating strawmen now eh bam...  how disappointing you've become in your desperation. Quote: You show me one example - just one will do - where Speaker Burke named a member for addressing her as "Madam Speaker". I never said she did now did I...

Burke NEVER threw anyone out of Parliament for daring to address her so far as I know. Bishop did.

If Burke actually did this, I'll stand corrected if you cite the Hansard with date and time.

And we can check bias quantitatively. Check the points of order in QT regarding relevance, and see how often these have been upheld and how many have been declined. There may be other statistics as well, such as how often the Speaker asks the Minister for clarification before making a ruling.

This is another example where you cannot back up your silly argument with any evidence.


Quote:

[quote]Or even one example where Speaker Burke asked someone to leave the chamber for addressing her as "Madam Speaker".

Ditto above and since when did she asked to be addressed as such?[/quote]
The exact form of address is not important. When did Burke throw anyone out for addressing her using her preferred title?


Quote:

[quote]Then your view that Burke was at least as biased as Bishop would have some weight.

Oh it does and so far she is worse than Bishop her record clearly shows her tossing coalition members out willy nilly and allowing the government to push propaganda ridicule and not answer questions.[/quote]
And Bishop forces the Government to answer every question and disallows propaganda?

::) ::) ::) :D :D :D

You crap on endlessly about her record but you refuse to provide any proof to back this up. You also persisit in this distraction tactic to deflect scrutiny from Bishop, who is the worst Speaker I have ever seen. And that includes the Victorian Coalition Speaker who shut down Parliament for two weeks last November rather than face a motion of no confidence.


Quote:

Now if that is happening when the boot is on the other foot it is hardly fair to cry foul now is it.

Bishop named and ejected an Opposition member for addressing her. A point you refuse to discuss.


Quote:

For the ALP, the Greens YOU or biased rusted-on supporters.

I'm not rusted on to any party, and will call issues as I see them. There's not a political party that I haven't criticised at some point.

When will you own up to being a rusted-on one-eyed Coalition supporter?

TheGreenLight wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

Could someone please fill me in on the Madam Speaker thing? Doesn't Bishop like being called that??

"Madam Speaker" is Speaker Bishop's preferred form of address within the chamber of the House of Representatives.

Mark Dreyfus, Member for Isaacs, was apparently named and ejected for addressing her.

Quote:

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the government's priority a plan to bring back knights and dames, but there is no plan for Alcoa workers, for car workers, or for Qantas workers? Prime Minister, why are your Liberal government's twisted priorities so out of touch with the needs of ordinary Australians? The SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister I simply want to note that there was silence on my left, as there should be, for the asking of the question. I expect the same silence for the answer. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker! The SPEAKER: I name the member for Isaacs! Opposition members interjecting— Mr Burke: For saying 'Madam Speaker'? The SPEAKER: I name the member for Isaacs! Mr Burke: For saying 'Madam Speaker'?

Test

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 11:32am:

99:0 The bitch is biased as well as senile.

I think the scoreline for previous Oppositions was just as lopsided, on both sides of politics.

Bam wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 11:46am:

Grendel wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:28am: Lying and creating strawmen now eh bam...  how disappointing you've become in your desperation. Quote: You show me one example - just one will do - where Speaker Burke named a member for addressing her as "Madam Speaker". I never said she did now did I... [quote]Or even one example where Speaker Burke asked someone to leave the chamber for addressing her as "Madam Speaker". Ditto above and since when did she asked to be addressed as such? [quote]Then your view that Burke was at least as biased as Bishop would have some weight.

Oh it does and so far she is worse than Bishop her record clearly shows her tossing coalition members out willy nilly and allowing the government to push propaganda ridicule and not answer questions.
Now if that is happening when the boot is on the other foot it is hardly fair to cry foul now is it.  For the ALP, the Greens YOU or biased rusted-on supporters.[/quote]
As expected, you refused to discuss the matter in good faith. Not surprising considering you can't back up what you say with the slightest shred of proof.

Discussing this with you is like trying to hunt down a cockroach.
[/quote]
I'm not the one lying and creating strawmen...  you need to take a good look at yourself...  now its name calling too eh.  ::) ::) ::)

Bam wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 11:59am:

Grendel wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:18am: Bam wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 9:37am: Grendel wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 9:42pm: Kat wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 5:20pm: mozzaok wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 4:35pm: I have seen Bronwyn Bishop as speaker a few times, and I have to admit I was surprised at how blatantly she displayed her bias. She does not even pretend to be fair or even handed, which does seem to give legitimacy to Labor putting forward the motion they did, and in the words they chose to do so. I know people disparage Slipper for his previous transgressions, but you could see he really did try to fulfill the role of speaker as fairly, and honorably as he could, and I think it must be a long time since we have had such a cavalier disdain for the honour needed in the role of speaker, as displayed by Bishop. Good post. Agreed. Do you both agree that Anna Burke was blatantly biased too? If not...  you're both biased and have no credibility If Burke was so blatantly biased, why didn't Abbott move a motion of no confidence in her? More adult and less intolerant.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Abbott is about as adult as a two-year-old who's been denied treats in a supermarket. Quote: [quote]With the tight numbers of the 43rd parliament, it would have had a chance of succeeding if she was too biased. Bulldust the 3 musketeers and the green saw labor safely by on every vote. Do you know why Slipper resigned as Speaker? He had lost the confidence of the House; Oakeshott and Windsor saw him privately to tell him that they would support a no confidence motion against him if one were moved, so he resigned. Pledging support on confidence in the Government is not the same thing as providing confidence in the Government's choice of Speaker.  Puhlease your point would be?  They replaced him as speaker... ::) ::) ::)

Slipper resigned because he did not have the numbers. That refutes your silliness about the three musketeers.
[/quote]
Good grief...  your personal and political bias do not make a credible argument.
I guess  you don't know who the 3 musketeers were then eh...  You mentioned 2 of them I merely added to your point.  To try and argue that Windsor and Dopeshott would ever support Abbott and the Coalition  is beyond ridiculous they spoke to Slipper to shore up Labor and their positions.

I'd love to know what this discussion is about but all the red insertions and the quoting of the quoting quoting renders it unintelligible.

Bam wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 12:26pm:

Grendel wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:28am: Lying and creating strawmen now eh bam...  how disappointing you've become in your desperation. Quote: You show me one example - just one will do - where Speaker Burke named a member for addressing her as "Madam Speaker". I never said she did now did I... Burke NEVER threw anyone out of Parliament for daring to address her so far as I know. Bishop did. :D :D :D :D :D Do stop... address what I said don't create strawmen. If Burke actually did this, I'll stand corrected if you cite the Hansard with date and time. Been over it shot your strawman to pieces...  you cant debate someone if you don't address what they actually say. And we can check bias quantitatively. Check the points of order in QT regarding relevance, and see how often these have been upheld and how many have been declined. There may be other statistics as well, such as how often the Speaker asks the Minister for clarification before making a ruling.  Look I watched parliament nearly every day...  Burke was plainly biased and never made the ALP answer questions...  she may have occasionally directed them to but they never did....  not when I was watching. This is another example where you cannot back up your silly argument with any evidence.  Not my fault you are either biased, dishonest or never watched parliament. [quote][quote]Or even one example where Speaker Burke asked someone to leave the chamber for addressing her as "Madam Speaker".

Ditto above and since when did she asked to be addressed as such?[/quote]
The exact form of address is not important. When did Burke throw anyone out for addressing her using her preferred title?
Not my point....  never made it did I...  you keep wanting to argue with a strawman.


Quote:

[quote]Then your view that Burke was at least as biased as Bishop would have some weight.

Oh it does and so far she is worse than Bishop her record clearly shows her tossing coalition members out willy nilly and allowing the government to push propaganda ridicule and not answer questions.[/quote]
And Bishop forces the Government to answer every question and disallows propaganda?

::) ::) ::) :D :D :D

You crap on endlessly about her record but you refuse to provide any proof to back this up. You also persisit in this distraction tactic to deflect scrutiny from Bishop, who is the worst Speaker I have ever seen. And that includes the Victorian Coalition Speaker who shut down Parliament for two weeks last November rather than face a motion of no confidence.  She may well get worse or not Improve...  but it'll take a very bad performance to outdo the bias of burke.


Quote:

Now if that is happening when the boot is on the other foot it is hardly fair to cry foul now is it.

Bishop named and ejected an Opposition member for addressing her. A point you refuse to discuss.
Don't need to, I don't judge a speaker on one action alone.  BTW Dreyfus probably deserved it he should have been booted many times by Burke and wasn't and he has a penchant for not answering questions when they were in government.


Quote:

For the ALP, the Greens YOU or biased rusted-on supporters.

I'm not rusted on to any party, and will call issues as I see them. There's not a political party that I haven't criticised at some point.  really? ;D ;D ;D  just make stupid childish comments about the PM instead eh?  :D :D :D

When will you own up to being a rusted-on one-eyed Coalition supporter?  I'm not, so why should I.  If you people stop lying and carrying on like demented fools with your LW prog bias I won't have to correct you.  I have proved often enough I am not RW, but I refuse to lie and denigrate someone due to political bias.
[/quote]