on 21-05-2014 05:14 PM
PREMIER Jay Weatherill has conceded an embarrassing public spat between two of his MPs is “destructive”, as Labor considers expelling John Gazzola from Caucus.
“Obviously John Gazzola is very disappointed about no longer being president (of the Upper House) and he’s chosen the most destructive way of expressing himself,” Mr Weatherill said today.
“I think it’s pretty sad actually.
“I expect everyone to get on with the job of actually representing the people of South Australia and not indulge themselves in these personal attacks over what is essentially about who gets what job in the Parliament.”
Mr Weatherill said disciplinary measures were “a matter for the party”, but Mr Gazzola’s outburst was “utterly unacceptable”.
“I certainly am not prepared to tolerate it,” he said.
Mr Gazzola used his address-in-reply to Governor Kevin Scarce’s speech at the opening of Parliament yesterday to blast his colleague, who replaced Mr Gazzola as Upper House president in a factional deal.
With Mr Wortley now sitting in the president’s chair, Mr Gazzola branded his factional rival “an embarrassment to the Labor movement”.
“Sir, normally I would congratulate you on becoming the president of the Legislative Council. Given the circumstances and by the mere fact that you became the president through a secret factional deal, it is difficult for me to wish you well,” Mr Gazzola said.
“I have been asked by members to assist you and advise you in your new role. Over time, I have formed my own view that you are a parasite and an embarrassment to the Labor movement. The final advice, given your record as a minister, would be that you should resign as president of the Legislative Council.”
Mr Weatherill today said Mr Gazzola must abide by the judgment of his colleagues.
Senior Labor figures late yesterday began discussing possible sanctions against Mr Gazzola, including possible expulsion from the party.
However, it now appears more likely he may be sanctioned with a temporary expulsion from Labor Caucus. Party rules explicitly ban MPs from acts of disloyalty or public disparagement of colleagues.
Still at it, I see.
on 21-05-2014 05:18 PM
Libs are still bawling
on 21-05-2014 05:19 PM
One is winking at radio presenter and being creepy, freddie.
on 21-05-2014 05:20 PM
Gee, Scraping the bottom yet?
No mention of the Libs brawling just for a bit of balance?
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Who ever did the punching should switch sides. The pm loves brawlers. Reckons a good punch deserves best and fairest prize.
on 21-05-2014 07:09 PM
still at at what, what a beat up about nothing very much at all. waste of words really. If anyone thinks there aren't blues, and factional fights inside the looters party they are kidding themselves. The big difference is that talking about anything publicly without approval will get you tossed out.
on 21-05-2014 07:35 PM
@boris1gary wrote:still at at what, what a beat up about nothing very much at all. waste of words really. If anyone thinks there aren't blues, and factional fights inside the looters party they are kidding themselves. The big difference is that talking about anything publicly without approval will get you tossed out.
Do you mean like Martin Ferguson?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-20/labor-wa-calls-on-alp-to-expel-martin-ferguson/5465872
on 21-05-2014 07:40 PM
thanks for that, yes (toss him they should) but the difference being it's (usually) very quietly done in the libs. I don't have any problem at all with party discipline, big supporter of it.
on 21-05-2014 07:55 PM
@boris1gary wrote:thanks for that, yes (toss him they should) but the difference being it's (usually) very quietly done in the libs. I don't have any problem at all with party discipline, big supporter of it.
You said in your earlier post: 'The big difference is that talking about anything publicly without approval will get you tossed out.'
Is it a different type of 'silence' or 'quietness'?
on 21-05-2014 08:05 PM
@mtnlane wrote:
@boris1gary wrote:thanks for that, yes (toss him they should) but the difference being it's (usually) very quietly done in the libs. I don't have any problem at all with party discipline, big supporter of it.
You said in your earlier post: 'The big difference is that talking about anything publicly without approval will get you tossed out.'
Is it a different type of 'silence' or 'quietness'?
I suppose i should have used more words, I very rarely read anything in the media about factional fights or political disagreements inside the libs, although of course they occur and i do hear the odd bit of gossip through people i know. recently there was a little story about some liberal bloke who appeared somewhere or other, very quick media grab, 2-3 minutes i think.
anyway he was either suspended or expelled for this. on the other hand the ALP do an awful lot of their blueing publicly, through the media. Personally i think they should knock it off, i also think they need to be more disciplined organisationally.
on 21-05-2014 08:10 PM
Thanks anyway - more words were unnecessary - there is nothing wrong with my powers of comprehension.
I was just querying the contradictory nature of your statements