---

@**meep** wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what he said but it was during the discussion about his wife.....He said something about not wanting to know about her business interests.

---

Well tough luck, he knows the rules.

Who would believe that for minute anyway when in the same interview he prattled on about family and working together to create a solid family.

He's from North Sydney, family owned a real estate business and he cries poor. He has a mighty warped concept of poor.

Poor little private school kid Hockey.

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

---

@**meep** wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what he said but it was during the discussion about his wife.....He said something about not wanting to know about her business interests.

---

 so a pre-emptive disclaimer ?

---

possibly

Poor little private school kid Hockey.

LOL

I know a lot of people who send their children to Catholic schools that are far from rich.

---

@**meep** wrote:

Poor little private school kid Hockey.

 

LOL

 

I know a lot of people who send their children to Catholic schools that are far from rich.

---

I didn't say he was rich. He said he has a warped concept of poor.

North Sydney is not a cheap real estate area.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/lib-policy-costings-exposed-by-ruling-20111130-1o773.html

one wonders if the australian people will see a repeat of this same ol' hockeynomics story

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

 the conservatives yell a lot. big letters in red or bold..  somewhat shrill, do they think this their big moment ? 3yrs with what looks like a non-compliant senate .. then fade away again.

---

Perhaps they should have financial penalties like they impose on us mortal beings for non compliance of the rules, $1 mil fine for failure to comply sounds good to me and should help repay all the money they have scammed from the people.

---

That would be great if not for the fact that we are talking about a group in society who vote themsleves a pay rise.

He just seemed to spend the whole debate talking up Lib DNA and talking down Lab anything and everything, without actually saying anything. He brushes off questions with boofheaded jokes then nasty digs at Labor.  

His arrogance has no limits.

TSS: "That would be great if not for the fact that we are talking about a group in society who vote themsleves a pay rise."

That would be great if not for the fact that you are talking nonsense.

The Remuneration and Allowances Act 1990 defines a parliamentary allowance which is consistent with the arrangements whereby the Remuneration Tribunal determines the remuneration of parliamentarians.

Does anyone bother to do basic research when making definitive, easily checked, comments ?

He definitely needs to stop speaking down to people, reminds me of someone - he does it with almost every post.

---

@monman12 wrote:

TSS: "That would be great if not for the fact that we are talking about a group in society who vote themsleves a pay rise."

 

That would be great if not for the fact that you are talking nonsense.

 

The Remuneration and Allowances Act 1990 defines a parliamentary allowance which is consistent with the arrangements whereby the Remuneration Tribunal determines the remuneration of parliamentarians.

 

Does anyone bother to do basic research when making definitive, easily checked, comments ?

---

you seem to forget where most information comes from in this country. most believe that they approve their own pay rises, which is partly true in that they can refuse or pledge to not accept the rise.. even a voluntary pay freeze .