R0bert, I'm not sure such a history should be an automatic reason for complete exclusion from Parliament in every circumstance, since people do change and sometimes good people act badly under great pressure. However, given the recent debacle with the PUP in Ferny Grove and now this, it seems there is certainly justification for mandatory vetting of candidates to be more rigorous than it seems to be at present.

However, I'm very much with you that acting against people on the basis of allegations that have not been proven is not acceptable.

It's unfortunate that in today's world, that is often a principle observed more often in the breach.

With those credentials that bloke would fit right in down here. The Labor and Liberal Parties in New South Wales would welcome him with open arms. In fact with that CV I'm sure he would be in line for the Premiers job. If he's out of work, he should give Eddy or Brad a call, that's 1800 CORRUPT. LOL

AVOs are usually given on allegations alone and it is up to the recipient to have them lifted, vexatious AVOs are not exceptional.

What are you on about, Has Been?

Finally we see a politician show some integrity at the risk of loosing own her job. I didn't see any laughter or circus.

If Palaszczuk didn't sack Billy Gordon you would have probably been one of the first to jump on the beat her up bandwagon.

Annastacia Palaszczuk is not one of my favourite people and I didn't want Labor to win in Queensland but it's only fair to give her, or anyone else, credit for doing the right thing under tough circumstances. I respect her now, whereas a few months ago I thought she was dopey.

The title of this discussion has been set at -
"No attention to detail."

Perhaps that is what we should do - take a look
at the details involved. When exactly was this
serious contact with the criminal justice system
made? Is it current? And was the man a Member of
Parliament at the time?

We also need to look at how well has he served his
electorate since becoming a Member of Parliament.
Has he committed any criminal act in the process?

There have been quite a few MPs from all sides of
politics who have done questionable things both in
their pasts and whilst in office. Scott Driscoll
LNP Member comes to mind (for fraud) and didn't
the previous Premier Newman have any well-hidden
nasties. to name just a few MPs.

Full marks on the current Queensland Premier's reaction
to this latest furphy.

However, I think that the rest of us should wait and see
what develops next and what else comes to light before
making judgements. He is the Member for Cook and one of
the first Indigenous Members elected for a generation.

If the man has done nothing wrong since coming to office -
and is seriously trying to make the best of his life now -
surely he should be given a chance to do so.

BTW: I'm not trying to excuse his past actions - I'm simply
asking that we do give attention to detail and examine
all of the facts before passing judgements. Lets leave
politics out of this, if we can. (Liberals - good,
Labor - bad).

Just a suggestion.

I believe anyone who has a criminal history of breaking and entering; driving while disqualified (thumbing their nose at the Law & Court); and/or poses a threat to the mother's well being, is not someone I would vote for. I also don't see how a person's ethnicity comes into picture, without being racist (racially biased against or racially biased to excuse).

Convicted crooks should be kept out of Parliament regardless if they are reformed or not. Politics corrupts the best of people, a person with a history of dishonesty would most likely succumb to the temptation at the first opportunity.

Perhaps it's time all politicians are made to declare their criminal records openly, and if the record puts off the voters, so be it.

Personally, I don't think a people with serious criminal convictions should be entitled to receive welfare payment either. Imagine someone of Gordon's ilk managing to stay in Parliament long enough to be entitled to the political welfare benefits the MP's receive.