2 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Accepted Solutions
@monman12 wrote:LL: "final approval was given by hunt last week."
Yes LL, but not for the coal mine which DY erroneously commented: "He is the man that gave permission for Australias largest coal mine." That was actually Tony Burke.
Hunt has only given the green light to the capital dredging program at Abbot Point, the Adani T0 project at Abbot Point, the Arrow Liquefied Natural Gas Facility on Curtis Island and the Arrow Gas Transmission Pipeline to Curtis Island.
Research and facts underwrite a post/thread/author, a lack of them undermines all.
blame hunt because he claimed the credit OK ?
thats a nice list
what exactly are we meant to be looking at?
Rio Tinto Fortesque BHP and Tiger Resources specifically
@nero_wulf wrote:3 in a row... rather obsessive or what
How much is the Labor party paying you to be their spokesperson on here I do hope its a good wage....
But as this is another labor luvin post so you can all sit around and hold hands as you agree with each other.
i think you forget your record-breaking spamfest from 2013 
you have no right to object.
where are all the little alan-jones grapes anyway ? with alans sour face ?
I won't get upset if my threads don't get posts on them, it just fills in a bit of time with a smile when I am working.
Nero is looking for new material.
NW, it is a a reflection of the pink myopics (I like chagrin) desperation as a result of their PPTSD.
From a scientific view the number of threads is inversely proportional to the author's and flock's political contentment, and I, while getting a chuckle or two from the threads , whether modern of historical, regard them as providing a much needed cathartic release for the inevitable pink flock which will now appear and mill around bleating to each other.
I see the flock are heeding the call already.
@monman12 wrote:NW, it is a a reflection of the pink myopics (I like chagrin) desperation as a result of their PPTSD.
From a scientific view the number of threads is inversely proportional to the author's and flock's political contentment, and I, while getting a chuckle or two from the threads , whether modern of historical, regard them as providing a much needed cathartic release for the inevitable pink flock which will now appear and mill around bleating to each other.
I see the flock are heeding the call already.
where were you during the NW spamfest ? did you miss it or maybe its just a matter of selective criticism.
So DY what exactly is your definition of conflict of interest, as opposed to those declared in the parliamentary pecuniary interest register? Take note of the owner/beneficiary and use the official record here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pmi/...
“Standing order 134(a) states that a Member may not vote in a division on a question about a matter, other than public policy, in which he or she has a particular direct pecuniary interest. Public policy can be defined as government policy, not identifying any particular person individually and immediately.”
".... under this definition, expulsion of a member of Parliament for conflict of interest is highly unlikely, because almost everything that is debated is public policy."
Bad bad Hunt, or perhaps bad,bad Hunt's wife????
Now DY if you feel like researching (????) you might find this:
http://infoaus.net/budget/expenses/pecuniary_interests_textnamesearch.php?name=hunt&interest=shares&...
DY, do you wonder at all why there is a "register" for all to see, and standing orders apropos voting in a division where a direct pecuniary interest might be involved?
