Yes I too have mocked Clive Palmer. No I too am not a Clive Palmer supporter.
However when the Western Australian newspaper ran the ridiculous front page splashes against Palmer with grotesque caricatures I was critical of the newspaper. I like others said the newspaper just just do better, get out of the sewer & do better. The front pages swayed from Palmer to Bikie fear stories.
I have mocked Palmer & it was during the last State Election when his party's Election Poster showed up at polling booths like every other party...except Clives were printed in China. Bit funny to pretend to be patriotic & not support local businesses.
In the case of the Palmer/McGowan defamation case it's looking like egotistical moron vs egotistical moron. Mr Palmer is suing McGowan for defamation & Mr McGowan is counter suing.
Mr Palmer has the premium $/hour legal team. For him the cost is tiny pocket change & any possible damages that may be awarded won't be great.
Vs.
Mr McGowan has the State paying his legal bills. We think that is his defence and assume it likely includes his counter claim legal costs.I can't assume which way the 2 seperately cases will go or if the court will award legal costs & damages. But if a side wins, damages ($) are awarded & the loser pays court costs then...
Mr Palmer would get the damages paid to him personally by the WA Taxpayers not Mr McGowan and legal costs would be paid by the WA Taxpayers if awarded by the courts.
Mr Palmer would get the damages paid to him personally by the WA Taxpayers not Mr McGowan and legal costs would be paid by the WA Taxpayers if awarded by the courts.
Vs.
Mr McGowan would get the damages paid to him personally by Mr Palmer and legal costs would be paid by Mr Palmer if awarded by the courts.
So 2 arguably ego driven morons are contesting things in court, one could potentially have to pay everything is he loses & is he wins might get damages & legal costs paid for by WA Taxpayers.
Whereas one could potentially hand the bill to WA Taxpayers if he loses but if he wins, he get to pocket any damages awarded. In fact if legal costs aren't awarded only McGowan will be the one who doesn't personally pay a lawyer.
Then there's the other underlying concerns.
This might have been all avoided had the Premier acted like a Statesman & not said unprofssional comments well beneath the office he occupies & just left Mr Palmer to say whatever he wants.
The original bill passed in the WA Parliament pushed this all over the edge. It was a bill that effectively removed the right of Mr Palmer to take the WA Government to court & seek a ruling, a financial ruling which the WA Labor Govt claimed would bankrupt the state.
I wait to see but what I was told was (check for yourself, don't rely on me) that the courts decide if there is a case to answer. Once the courts decides if the WA Government is at fault THEN the courst decide if damages are warranted and THEN the courts decide what amount. You don't start proceedings & drop in an invoice of $30Billion or any other matter. The newspapers may have pushed a map of bankruptcy that may not have ever existed. FWIW I don't think even with that amount the state would be bankrupt but it would end up with a massive deficit it could have avoided.
It also means the Government was sure it was in the wrong, that the court would see that the Government had failed Mr Palmer & the the law so they had to change the law. In other words, they knew they were guilty so they changed the ability to use the courts.
During debate in 24 hours it took to pass the bill the word unprecedented came up as a reason to go outside the norm. This was the cry of silly child like minds or just plain sloppy & lazy MPs because NOW we have a precedent for future MPs & Governments to use against others. If a person is now regarded as a financial threat to the government because the government will be proven to be in the wrong, JUST REMOVE THE LEGAL RIGHT OF THE PARTY OF TAKING LEGAL ACTION & PREVENT THEM FROM TRYING TO SUE THE GOVERNMENT
They have removed the legal right from an Australian Citizen from using the courts because it's likely they would win a legal contest. LET THAT SINK IN.
So 2 arguably ego driven morons are contesting things in court, one could potentially have to pay everything is he loses & is he wins might get damages & legal costs paid for by WA Taxpayers.
Whereas one could potentially hand the bill to WA Taxpayers if he loses but if he wins, he get to pocket any damages awarded. In fact if legal costs aren't awarded only McGowan will be the one who doesn't personally pay a lawyer.
Then there's the other underlying concerns.
This might have been all avoided had the Premier acted like a Statesman & not said unprofssional comments well beneath the office he occupies & just left Mr Palmer to say whatever he wants.
The original bill passed in the WA Parliament pushed this all over the edge. It was a bill that effectively removed the right of Mr Palmer to take the WA Government to court & seek a ruling, a financial ruling which the WA Labor Govt claimed would bankrupt the state.
I wait to see but what I was told was (check for yourself, don't rely on me) that the courts decide if there is a case to answer. Once the courts decides if the WA Government is at fault THEN the courst decide if damages are warranted and THEN the courts decide what amount. You don't start proceedings & drop in an invoice of $30Billion or any other matter. The newspapers may have pushed a map of bankruptcy that may not have ever existed. FWIW I don't think even with that amount the state would be bankrupt but it would end up with a massive deficit it could have avoided.
It also means the Government was sure it was in the wrong, that the court would see that the Government had failed Mr Palmer & the the law so they had to change the law. In other words, they knew they were guilty so they changed the ability to use the courts.
During debate in 24 hours it took to pass the bill the word unprecedented came up as a reason to go outside the norm. This was the cry of silly child like minds or just plain sloppy & lazy MPs because NOW we have a precedent for future MPs & Governments to use against others. If a person is now regarded as a financial threat to the government because the government will be proven to be in the wrong, JUST REMOVE THE LEGAL RIGHT OF THE PARTY OF TAKING LEGAL ACTION & PREVENT THEM FROM TRYING TO SUE THE GOVERNMENT
They have removed the legal right from an Australian Citizen from using the courts because it's likely they would win a legal contest. LET THAT SINK IN.
Now jump back to the Palmer/McGowan defamation case & lets look at the released text messages sent by Mr McGowan
- "Thanks Kerry. I was asked about those marvellous front pages today ... I appreciate the support enormously,"
This one may suggest a relationship between a Premier & a Media owner many might feel uncomfortable about. There are many wondering if Opposition Leaders one knew of the "Palmer Bill" just as it was being presented to Parliament then it does sort of look like Mr Stokes got word about it than those opposition leaders & possible Labor's own back benchers & other MPs. Starts to look like a very small closed circle of Labor MPs controlling legislation. - "All the mealy-mouthed tut-tutting by some people about Palmer's 'rights' makes me sick."
Sad to hear the Premier is sick, he appears to be unwell a lot by just hearing differing views. He is clearly not in possession of any Statesmanship traits. Sadder still that a person with a law degree happy to remove the sensible rule of law, a person's right to a day in court & a person's right to damages/compensation via the courts. - "I don't like Mr Palmer. I can't stand what he does,"
This is not whether you like the person or not. You do not remove his rights to WA Law because of like or dislike.
He launched legal action against the Premier Mark McGowan for defamation. Imagine if the Premier had the ability to pass a Bill to remove Mr Palmer's legal right to sue for defamation? Imagine if anyone sued the Government or a MP for defamation or was on any criminal charges...would you be ok with an Act being passed to vanquish all legal proceedings against the Govt???
Below was written the day the Bill hit the Lower House, 12th of August 2020 and is about the nicknamed Palmer Bill. This is in large part, where the rancid McGowan/Palmer Madness War really went peak stupid.
You'll note concern was high & hope was the legislators would stick to doing the right thing & refer it to a Parliamentary Committee.
It wasn't.
It was appalling, the opposition leaders were played like a 2 bob watch and those still in Parliament who did vote for it either don't realise what wrong they passed or they're too proud to say they were wrong. This was peak WALabor Enabler example.
Some Liberal Party MPs were onto it, understood it & opposed it. Hard to find others.
As those who voted for it are legislators, well supposedly, they are the law makers. To get this basic legal premise so horribly wrong tells me there are a number of people who shouldn't be in Parliament and anywhere near the making of laws.
Seriously Think for a minute: Clive Palmer - Sticking my neck out
Later Note - I'm advised the Leader of the Liberal Party Liza Harvey & Leader of the Nationals were informed of the Bill were told in the corner of the chamber at approx 5pm on the 11th of August 2020 without any prior warning, with no consultation. The following day, parliament began at 1pm. Liza Harvey said about 40 mins after that said they had no time to seek independent legal advice. They took the Premier on his word. The Premier said it would cost the state $30 Billion & yet Palmer on radio said that is a lie, that is not the worth of the claim.
Added twist, the Act would take effect from the time it was read into the Parliament, which was 11th of August. So the urgency is off a lot. No matter of the time taken, whether it passed both houses and took a month to get Royal Ascent, it would take effect from the 11th of August. So at that point I wonder why the Opposition cut back private member's time by 2 hours to get it quickly passed & why the Upper House did not refer to a Parliamentary Committee. The time pressure is off. It could have taken all manner of time & process to pass, to be amended, to go thru committees then amended & passed or indeed laid on the table to allow the opposition to seek independent legal advice that is indepenedant of the Govt, the Attorney General & the Premier. Not sure if cabinet knew of the Bill, none on the back bench did. Seems like the Premier, the deputy premier, the attorney general & possibly the Treasurer did. Beyong that, no one knows or seems to keen to say.
The fact a bill was rushed through on the say so of 3-4 people maybe 5 and the entire remainder of the House had no chance to test it independently is a nightmare. Most bills sit on the table for around 30 days so MPs can get across them. They could have stuck to that seeing the bill took effect as of 11th of August 2020 & no matter when it took legal ascent (became law) after the 11th.
In Liza Harvey's opening comments, there is enough to say stop.
And yet...64 pages with 32 clauses. It was passed & the following day the Upper House began debating it and were not given written copies of it.
Here's the exact moment when it was passed in the Lower House. 7 Labor MPs present & 3 Liberal MPs present to vote. That is all. No voices against heard, no division was called.
Now if we go back to earlier in the day, debate was suspended early in the "Ban Palmer Bill" (nickname) for Questions with Notice & below was the very first. This was the last hill for which the Opposition could die upon.
I commend Lisa Harvey for asking this question.
Arrow 1 - Lisa Harvey pushed for some fair & reasonable accountibility. Remember once passed this Act would take effect the day before this question was asked. So there was plenty of room for a committee to act "...in the best interests of accountibility & over sight, without compromising the state's position"
Arrow 2 - The Premier flat out rejected it & then barraged the opposition for saying such a thing. She didn't withdraw the support for the bill, she wanted to add a fair & reasonable Upper House Committee to act in "...in the best interests of accountibility & over sight, without compromising the state's position" - To this day I am still unsure what fair & reasonable notion the Premier was operating under. The Act would take effect from the day before. My thought is he intend to Panzer over all others. His way or his way.
Its at this point The Leader of the Opposition should decided this was a hill she was prepared to die on. She should have called for a Supplementary Question & then said "Premier, will you reconsider because we will not support the Bill without the committee we called for, if you won't budge, neither will we?"
Virtually all the criticisms I have of the entire opposition in the Lower House would have been avoided.
It was left to the few who stood against it in the Upper House, but it wasn't enough.
A bill was passed. An Act soon recieved Royal Ascent. It was law & no committee was able to look into why only the Premier, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, a named Law Firm, possibly the Deputy Premier, possibly the Treasurer & possibly the Leader of the House and Kerry Stokes knew about this prior to it being dropped on the House on the 11th.
It will require a royal commission or some other inquiry to get to the bottom of this, who knew what and when. We're told none of the Labor back benchers knew until the bomb dropped. Well it probably didn't matter, they cannot vote against the Premier without being expelled from the party.
Sad to see an opportunity to allow transperancy, accountibility to coexist with the State's interests, sadder still to see some not willing to stop everything & take the flak to ensure it happens.
I commend Lisa Harvey for asking this question.
Arrow 1 - Lisa Harvey pushed for some fair & reasonable accountibility. Remember once passed this Act would take effect the day before this question was asked. So there was plenty of room for a committee to act "...in the best interests of accountibility & over sight, without compromising the state's position"
Arrow 2 - The Premier flat out rejected it & then barraged the opposition for saying such a thing. She didn't withdraw the support for the bill, she wanted to add a fair & reasonable Upper House Committee to act in "...in the best interests of accountibility & over sight, without compromising the state's position" - To this day I am still unsure what fair & reasonable notion the Premier was operating under. The Act would take effect from the day before. My thought is he intend to Panzer over all others. His way or his way.
Its at this point The Leader of the Opposition should decided this was a hill she was prepared to die on. She should have called for a Supplementary Question & then said "Premier, will you reconsider because we will not support the Bill without the committee we called for, if you won't budge, neither will we?"
Virtually all the criticisms I have of the entire opposition in the Lower House would have been avoided.
It was left to the few who stood against it in the Upper House, but it wasn't enough.
A bill was passed. An Act soon recieved Royal Ascent. It was law & no committee was able to look into why only the Premier, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, a named Law Firm, possibly the Deputy Premier, possibly the Treasurer & possibly the Leader of the House and Kerry Stokes knew about this prior to it being dropped on the House on the 11th.
It will require a royal commission or some other inquiry to get to the bottom of this, who knew what and when. We're told none of the Labor back benchers knew until the bomb dropped. Well it probably didn't matter, they cannot vote against the Premier without being expelled from the party.
Sad to see an opportunity to allow transperancy, accountibility to coexist with the State's interests, sadder still to see some not willing to stop everything & take the flak to ensure it happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment