What I want to know is how much time she shaved off considering it's a ~130 minute round trip by car.
Particularly annoying for me since I had to make that trip today.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
What I want to know is how much time she shaved off considering it's a ~130 minute round trip by car.
Particularly annoying for me since I had to make that trip today.
If she did it for time reasons she needs to plan better or prioritise. A fundraiser for a political party should not be paid for by the taxpayer.
If it was so important she had stuff on before or afterwards then those items should have been seen to instead of wasting money looking important.
If it was so important she had stuff on before or afterwards then those items should have been seen to instead of wasting money looking important.
bobnowhere
Member
.
Perfect.
bobnowhere
Member
He's also the most regarded scientist in the LNP!
Yup :/
Methinks trying to muscle in on some of the more publicly appealing MPs by tweeting about things not politics. And then using the #auspol tag for some fucking reason.
bobnowhere
Member
Pretty much. I suspect her and her staff have been working hard since the helicopter ride was revealed to find an equally egregious example from the Labor party to wave back at them. Clearly they were unable to.
And he's still not an astronomer or astrophysicist.
Parasites actually have an important biological function and ecological niche to fulfil.
This guy has neither.
Good point.
Not to mention the hypocrisy in comparison to Peter Slipper's treatment for only $900.
The LNP threw a collective tantrum over the 2010 balance of power negotiations and went feral at Slipper. Why is it not so important for the LNP now to have financial accountability for MPs?
You and me both, she is just the bloody speaker, never mind it was just an hour away from home...
edit: I like only now that there is such attention about it she is going to pay it back
But don't you dare go on that lefty Q and A!
Good. Let everyone see what he stands for.
Didn't something come up with him a week or so ago when he tweeted something, then deleted it?
Yeah he tweeted if we follow the US on marriage equality shouldn't we follow them on guns laws because...well...
That's interesting. I'm not really understanding the blow up, it makes me feel pretty out of touch. Not that it's not a problem, but it's such a minor issue. So someone on $350k a year incorrectly charged $5k to their employer when they should have spent it out of pocket? I mean, it's nice that this fucking terrible government is getting some negative coverage for a change, but how about they get some negative coverage for being a fucking terrible government rather than for something that goes on in the private sector every day of the week.
bobnowhere
Member
He's a serial offender this clown. Says/posts something stupid, withdraws and then blames it on lefty/socialist/greenies/etc... trying to stop his free speech. Every village has it's idiot.
I'm guessing because it fulfills the formula of being;
Easily digestible + perception of being un-Australian + something innately silly or prone to humour.
I mean, the closest Tony Abbott's came to losing his job was the knighting Prince Phillip thing and that was fairly innocuous when you think about some of the shit this guy does.
Yes, but this piece makes every village idiot look like a member of mensa in comparison.
Off topic but here is a question for lawyer ausgaf, to do with marriage equality.
Lets say you have two people in a conventional heterosexual marriage.
One of them later (discovers? terminology fail on my part?) they are transgender and begins the formal legal and medical procedures to transition.
Their spouse then supports them and remains with them through this period.
Question: if the transitioned person gains legal recognition then as being of the same gender as their spouse, is this then the formal moment their marriage is considered annulled as a result? Or has this not yet even been tested in court?
It seems on the face of it that exactly the same person can be a legal spouse one moment, and then the very next instance not be. In reality that seems absurd - the person in question is still exactly the same person they always have been, the only legal change is the box they tick on the identification forms. So it then follows in my mind that if such a marriage remained recognised, then it would be a legal same sex marriage and thus form a precedent in law.
Is that something which could be used as a basis to get the law to be changed to include marriage equality without even having to wait for the numnuts in canberra to get a move on?
With respect to the private sector, it's their money..they can blow it on jelly babies and blow for all I care. She is using public money, taxpayers money for the merest convenience. I don't mind functionaries of government being able to charge expenses for reasonable things, but flying from Melbourne to Geelong is hardly reasonable, neither is using 90k of taxpayers money to look for another job.
There was a case like this a few years ago, but it was the case for adoption or some other registry (IIRC) where one person had changed genders. From what I remember, which might be faulty or incorrect at this stage (it was so long ago), the court basically said that if you've changed genders, that is your legal gender and therefore they couldn't prevent her doing something...or rather.
So from that it would flow that if one person changed their gender the marriage would cease because it's a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. It would probably work in the same way of what happens when one party to a marriage passes away...the marriage merely ceases to exist.
i mean just because the reality of the situation seems absurd doesn't mean that the legal situation would be thrown out... I think the marriage would indeed cease to exist since they've changed their legal gender and under the marriage act, a marriage between two people of the same gender couldn't be a marriage.
It's indeed absurd, but it would be legally absurd.
It's indeed absurd, but it would be legally absurd.
Aarglefarg
Member
There might have been some changes recently but as far as I know: The ACT is the only place in Australia without forced divorce upon transitioning. NSW, SA and TAS had bills introduced last year to change it but from the Courier Mail link don't seem to have been successful(?). There was talk last month about trying to change it in QLD.
NSW, SA, TAS: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/three-australia-states-move-scrap-trans-divorce-laws161014/
QLD: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...land-divorce-law/story-fnn8dlfs-1227386391477
I know a person whose marriage was annulled because he is intersex. Without law changes (or moving), an intersex person can legally not get married in these places. I have used the intersex annulment requirement to argue against the idea that there's no discrimination as anyone can marry a person of a different sex, just like anyone else can.
Also I note that there have been same-sex marriage bills, including in Australia, that specifically don't change forced divorce or annullment laws. And some groups supposedly wanting equal marriage support these. >:- [
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news...sex-people-excluded-from-marriage-bill/107283
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news...marriage-bill-excludes-intersex-people/111349
EDIT: Regarding "if the transitioned person gains legal recognition then as being of the same gender as their spouse, is this then the formal moment their marriage is considered annulled as a result?", I think it is that in order to legally transition, they must be single. So they are divorced beforehand.
Thats something Id never considered. Someone who is intersex really has no legal option?
Proof the law is discriminatory and based on a simpleton's view of sexuality and gender. And love, for that matter.
Well, yeah...
Well that may have been the trivial way to phrase it, but as was said earlier, conservative/christian apologists often like to make flippant arguments saying that "homosexual men and women can still get married if they want to someone of the opposite gender". An intersex person doesn't even have that contrived option.
Yeah, I think you're onto something here. Thanks.
I'm talking about defrauding your employer. It's not "their" money at all. From the workers perspective there's no difference. The only difference is governance, given we get a broad say in who gets employed.
Bronwyn Bishop. There are two lady Bishops.
But Fred, we the public are not the worker, we are the employer in this case. It is normal to be more upset about fraud committed by your employees than those employed by other organisations. It's not a minor issue at all. Somebody defrauding a company I have no stake in is a minor issue to me, not the person who owns the company. It is relative to your involvement in the organisation being defrauded.
While I think "we are the employer" is the same kind of fanciful notion that makes people think that taxes are their money, I mostly agree with what you're saying regarding involvement. Charging expenses to a company is tax fraud as well though, since what gets charged to the company generally allows the company to get a refund for the GST paid on it. This is a point that sometimes gets forgotten in the debate between GST and other taxes, since the well off generally have easy ways around paying it at all.
I stand by my assessment of the severity. $5k is nothing compared to the waste of bad/vindictive policy, and of gratuitous military photo opps. How do we get people to go red with rage about these things too?
Spike the public water supply with vitamins and smart... things?
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Last night on 7:30 Leigh Sales asked Bishop (Julie) if the helicopter business, the knighting of Prince Philip and Joe Hockey saying Joe Hockey things indicated that the Government was out of touch. Her response was that she didn't understand the question because those were three separate things.
Also got a chuckle out of Shorten talking about Bishop flying "above the people". Would be a fascinating study in verisimilitude if the Royal Commission leads to more public appearances of Yobbo Union Bill.
Also got a chuckle out of Shorten talking about Bishop flying "above the people". Would be a fascinating study in verisimilitude if the Royal Commission leads to more public appearances of Yobbo Union Bill.
I bet that cost more than $5k.
Not to mention Abbott getting on board all those military hardware, choppers, planes, boats, and getting custom military uniforms just for photo opps to make him look like a fascist lord and master. $5k? Play money to compared to that.
http://www.rsl.org.au/Portals/13/Ou...ation/Flying the Australian Flag Protocol.pdf
It's against protocol to have over-printed words on the flag.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked