MPs cleared to lie in parliament

You gotta wonder what these people are thinking. Or if they ever think?

The Queensland Opposition today declared the "lying season" open after a controversial bill passed through the house, allowing MPs to lie in parliament without fear of prosecution.

The Criminal Code Amendment Bill was controversially passed by the government today following heated debate by MPs in recent weeks.

Introduced by Attorney-General Linda Lavarch, it decriminalises lying to a parliamentary committee, allowing the parliament instead to deal with contempt issues.

I guess, since they have all those departments without any real authority, Attorneys-General have to find something to do at times.
Here is an AG that got so bored she decided to pass a law to take away the criminal liability from her fellow parliamentarians to lie to Parliament.

In Victoria, AG Rob Hulls decided that the discrimination in the courts against men wasn't sufficient, so he decided to appoint high court judges and magistrates if they had "Feminist" on their resumes. He's creating an activist court system to rewrite the laws. Well, at least it will keep a lot of attorneys employed, I suppose. But I can't help wishing he gets to face his own prejudiced courts someday...

The above law only applies to members when they testify before committees in sworn testimony. That members lie to each other and the public daily on the floor of Parliament is just established custom.
But this statement is a little disturbing:

But Premier Peter Beattie, during debate on the issue in the parliament late yesterday, said the laws would merely bring Queensland into line with all other states and territories and with Westminster.

... a little later in the piece.
It kinda brings a chuckle.
Politicians are a strange sort of affirmative action program. Where else are we going to employ such high-functioning psychopaths?

What this law means is that to be proven to have lied under oath will no longer be a criminal offense -- an offense against the common good -- but will be subject to the whims of the committee or members to impose sanctions based on contempt charges.
It is a statement of contempt for the public weal in favor of the members.
If your party happens to be in power, you can pretty much lie with impunity. The Opposition won't be able to push through charges of contempt.

Now, there are those who may have some question about that interpretation, but it won't be Julia Gilliard.

Thursday last week:

- Tony Abbott interrupting Labor MP Kelvin Thomson in parliament: "I move that that snivelling grub over there be not further heard."

- Mr Abbott withdrawing the comment moments later: "If I have offended grubs, I withdraw unconditionally."

- Deputy Speaker Peter Lindsay accepting the withdrawal: "The Leader of the House has clarified that it is his intention to withdraw those words and that what he said was intended to withdraw those words. I accept that."

When Mr Abbott rose to speak yesterday, Ms Gilliard repeated Mr Abbott's insult word for word, placing Abbott's name into the statements.
Since she was from the Opposition, she was forced to leave the hall.

Labor frontbencher Julia Gillard has been ordered out of the House of Representatives after calling Health Minister Tony Abbott a "snivelling grub".

Mr Abbott made his statement while his mate, Mr Lindsay, was presiding. It is another example of mateship turning to corruption.

I have to say that I like Julia Gilliard, not setting aside my general opinion of politicians. But then, I like both Bill and Hillary Clinton as leaders.
I have no particular opinion of the others involved, but I will say that Mr Abbott has proven himself repeatedly to be the most apparent Snivelling Grub -- over and over again.

Perhaps Parliament should pay more attention to the murmurings from the business community, where politicians draw their money and their psychopathic role models.
From "Business Ethics: No longer a contradiction in trade terms":

The average person seems to be looking to reflect their social and environmental views more holistically in their government, workplace, consumption, and even their share portfolio.

Companies have responded in one of two ways. The first group believes all they need to do is the minimum required legally. They define fiduciary duty very narrowly around accounting assets, and ignore arguments that more than half of company valuations are around "intangibles". Many complain loudly about the "cost of compliance". They ignore the fact that around them, community standards are rising, and these will be reflected in customer behaviours, workplace loyalty, and in regulation for those companies that don't self-regulate effectively.

The greatest atrocities in history have been legal -- meaning there was a law. Morals and ethics are not the province of legislation. They are the province of leadership and example. And guess what? The public believes in fairness and moral vision... Even the largest businesses recognize it.