Dear JF Aus,

Yes. The numbers ejected from the House certainly
are a clear indication of our Speaker's bias.

Having a truly independent Speaker would allow for the
Parliament as an institution separate from the
government to keep ALL ministers accountable - and
not just singling out the Opposition as is currently done.

We should follow the example of the UK's Speaker.
Who is independent from the government.

Foxy,

Labor's Speaker got off on a technicality. The finding that he submitted forged documents still stands.

Liberals get that left whingers have double standards and ignores entitlement abuses by their own MPs but kicks up a great fuss when liberal MPs do the same.

SM,

"Labor's Speaker got off on a technicality. The finding that he submitted forged documents still stands."

Not what this says:

""A Canberra court has thrown out Peter Slipper's conviction for defrauding the Commonwealth.

Justice John Burns on Thursday found the prosecution had not proven Mr Slipper did not conduct parliamentary business on his visits to Canberra region wineries.

"It follows that it was not open to the magistrate, viewing the evidence as a whole, to convict," the judge found.

Justice Burns ordered the appeal be upheld and the convictions and penalties imposed by the magistrate be set aside."

"Verdicts of not guilty will be substituted with respect to each charge."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/peter-slipper-conviction-overturned-by-canberra-court-20150226-13p7b1.html#ixzz3gmOnzYFW

You still haven't submitted your evidence that Slipper was up on a charge of "submitting forged documents".

Details please.....

As far as I can see he was initially convicted (before that judgement was overturned) of defrauding the Commonwealth.

Which documents submitted by Slipper were forged?

Direct us to finding where it states that he was convicted of submitting forged documents?"

Dear Shadow Minister,

The Supreme Court rulings were not based on a
"technicality."

And as for double standards?

You have to look no further than our current Prime
Minister for his thuggery and his "Take No Prisoners"
track record.

I'd keep quiet on that subject if I were you.

Funny, I thought this thread was about whether Ms Bishop should be tossed out of the Speaker's chair for her conduct. Yet to the usual suspects it's about almost everything else - mainly switching the topic to unsubstantiated allegations of what Tweedledee had done. The only behaviour of Tweedledee relevant to the topic of the thread is whether they behaved like yobbos in Parliament, forcing the Speaker's hand. I haven't watched much of Parliament but what I have watched (especially Question Time) contained no hooliganism - just Opposition pollies being thrown out the moment they started to raise a question or a point of order.

The other points made by the usual suspects have been about issues totally irrelevant to the conduct of Ms Bishop - and what should be done about it.

Footage of Parliament will be on file and together with Hansard can assist a Royal Commission into Ms Bishop's behaviour and the complicity of her colleagues. Remember many payback Royal Commissions are owed when the Libs and the Squatters’ Party have been dragged kicking and screaming to an election and lose government. There are plenty of issues more serious than the antics of a silly old harridan to warrant Royal Commissions to repay those tame witch-hunts that have been used against especially Rudd, Gillard and Shorten.

Foxy

Actually they were, What was accepted was that the documents submitted to Finance were fraudulent. However PS was charged with defrauding Finance not just committing fraud.

P.S. there is more evidence that Shorten is a rapist, and Juliar is a crook, than of any thuggery by Abbott.