[Peetwo]

Sterling Sterlo vs WOFTAM Wong.

Totally agree "K", Sterlo's performance above gives me heart that the Senate RRAT will remain mostly apolitical, relevant and effective in inquiry or estimates. 

While we are in the red corner, compare the Senator Sterle non-political performance above to the following (reference: Wong muck raking & the GRABOR Party):

Here is the Hansard:

24 February 2015 (HTML & PDF)

Infrastructure and Regional Development

There are 2 sections of Hansard that IMO go to the 'true' intent of Senator Wong i.e. political point scoring...

...This was the ASA QON of which Wong asked 5 pretty much nugatory questions from the Hansard:

140-160


Airservices Australia
(PDF 825KB)
Correction to QoN 156 (PDF 146 KB)
15/05/2015

The OBS here is that if Wong was so 'enraged' by the possibility that South Australian ATCOs may lose their jobs, then you would of thought the Senator would have put many more written QON to ASA? Perhaps she discovered the amount of political muck raking she could cause was negligible and so she gave it up. She certainly didn't follow up the issue in any RRAT Estimates since..

Get the picture?

One of the other disturbing things with the Wong political mud-raking campaign is that she believes that taxpayers should pay for the privilege. The perfect example of this was when PW instigated a Senate inquiry just prior to the election:

Commonwealth legislative provisions relating to oversight of associated entities of political parties


On 19 April 2016, the following matter was referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by the 4 May 2016:

Commonwealth legislative provisions relating to oversight of associated entities of political parties, with particular reference to the adequacy of:

1. the funding and disclosure regime relating to annual returns;
   

1. the powers of the Australian Electoral Commission with respect to supervision of the conduct of, and reporting by, associated entities of political parties; and
   
2. any related matters; and
   

2.     That the Senate direct Senator Sinodinos to appear before the committee to answer questions.

The Submission closing date is mid-day, Tuesday 26 April 2016. The reporting date is 4 May 2016.

This inquiry is a sham, first you have five days to make a submission; then two days later the inquiry is listed for public hearing with the next day as a back up; then the committee is expected to report by the 4th of May, which just so happens to be 1 day after the budget is handed down and 1 day before the Short-one's reply to the budget and presumably 2 days before the PM's DD election proroguing of Parliament.

In other words we the taxpayers are effectively funding part of the Grabor election campaign through a bogus political point scoring Senate Inquiry, designed to inflict maximum embarrassment to the PM on the eve of calling an election - absolutely, diabolically disgusting, shame on you Shorten, Wong & co.       

And then there was the Wong QON -  WONG QON III. & HERE:

From that it can be seen that Senator Wong has indeed over 1500 QON on record - Senator Wong (ALP) 1771 - with the next highest on record being from Senator Lambie with 121.
Presumably some of this high number can be explained by the fact that Wong is the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and therefore largely represents the interests of the Opposition. However if you compare that to the previous parliament where Senator Abetz was in the same position, he asked a total of 737 QON for the whole of the 43rd Parliament.

I guess the big number of QON from Wong could be accepted (i.e. in the public interest) if they were mostly questions that challenged the veracity & legitimacy of the Coalition Government - but are they? Another point/question that I'd like to make is that from past experience with QON in Senate Estimates, is the Parliamentary QON system an effective and legitimate way of holding the government to account; or is it just more political posturing & point scoring??

..Wong 269 unanswered QON: Avoiding the 80 odd highly repetitive QON addressed to the Treasurer on the 16 December 2015, let us go to the QON asked of PM Turnbull on the same date:

Question on notice no. 2848

Senator the Hon. Penny Wong

Minister representing the Prime Minister

Notice given 16 December 2015

Senator the Hon. Penny Wong: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister on 16 December 2015:

(1) In regard to places allocated to the National Party under the Coalition Agreement signed by the Prime Minister, what quota is allocated in:
(a) the Cabinet; and
(b) the Ministry.
(2) Does the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the National Party, determine which members of the National Party fill the quotas.
(3) Will the Prime Minister provide a copy of the Coalition Agreement.

& ..

Question on notice no. 2849


Senator the Hon. Penny Wong

Minister representing the Prime Minister

Notice given 16 December 2015

Senator the Hon. Penny Wong: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister on 16 December 2015:

Has the Prime Minister considered offering diplomatic posts to any other ex-ministers he removed from the ministry to prevent them staying in the Parliament for the sole purpose of 'getting even'.

 
Other examples from the next 2 QON 'cluster' dates  : 

Senator the Hon. Penny Wong: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister on 9 December 2015:

With reference to the Griswold Center for Economic Studies paper by Dr Martin Parkinson published in September 2015 titled 'The Lucky Country: Has it Run out of Luck?', does the Prime Minister agree with the incoming Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that 'Australia is not well positioned for either the opportunities or challenges ahead'.

---

Senator the Hon. Penny Wong: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister on 9 December 2015:

Did the Prime Minister or his department assist the former Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott, with his request to be received by The Queen in London in October 2015; if so, what assistance was provided.

---

Senator the Hon. Penny Wong: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister on 4 December 2015:

(1) When and how did the Prime Minister become aware that the Deputy Prime Minister was having discussions with the Member for Groom, Mr Ian Macfarlane, about defecting from the Liberal Party room to the National Party room.
(2) Was the Prime Minister surprised to learn these discussions began just days after the Prime Minister chose not to appoint Mr Macfarlane to his ministry.

UFB-   Verdict: not in the public & citizens of SA interest  

 To put a line under the WONG QON series, at least for the 44th Parliament, the following is the Senate collated data up till the end of 2015:

Questions on Notice Summary 44th Parliament
For the period 12 November 2013 to 31 December 2015
This summary includes information for the 44th Parliament from 12 November 2013, when notice of the first question was given, till 31 December 2015.
© Commonwealth of Australia 2015
View the report as a single document - (PDF 629KB)

Unfortunately this list does not include the nearly 300 QON frenzy that Wong went on between January to May 2016, however from the list above we get a fair appreciation of how out of control PW was in asking mostly politically motivated and therefore irrelevant QON. Of the 2895 QON, there was 2014 asked by Senator Wong. That is a whopping 70% of the total QON asked up until the 31st December 2015. Now compare that to Senator Sterle who, other than for Senate Estimates, for the whole of the 44th parliament asked a total of zero QON - see HERE if you don't believe me.


MTF...P2