It’s the Murdoch technique to announce a new rule, and pretend it’s always been in force. Yesterday it was declared by their people that a vote for a piece of government legislation should be rejected (it was not said how) by that government if the member of parliament in question was suspected of something or other but not charged with it yet.
This is a really new rule. Because when Mark Vaile and Alexander Downer were suspected of giving two hundred and ninety-seven million dollars to Saddam Hussein their votes were accepted, and not questioned, by John Howard or Peter Costello.
Tony Abbott did not speak up against their tainted votes, nor Eric Abetz.
They should reflect on this, I think.
Or perhaps you disagree.
And, oh yes. How do you, constitutionally, reject a vote on the floor of the House of a duly elected Member of Parliament? How do you do that? He can vote as he likes, can he not? What business is it of yours? The Speaker, perhaps, can throw him out. But why would she?
What an immense breach of the Constitution is being suggested here.
And not one reporter has taken note of it.