I doubt Barber would get the five years needed for him to be booted out of parliament under the Constitution Act 1975, however the following provision disqualification might apply to him:
"by reason of being of unsound mind, is incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting"
Oops - my mistake!
The provision I quoted was to be an elector.
The correct provision (which excludes ability to be elected) is:
"An elector who has been convicted or found guilty of an indictable offence which by virtue of any enactment is punishable upon first conviction by imprisonment for life or for a term of five years or more committed by him when of or over the age of 18 years under the law of Victoria or under the law of any other part of the British Commonwealth of Nations shall not be qualified to be elected a member of the Council or the Assembly."
Not sure if that is meant to apply once you are elected though ...
perhaps there is some other provision in the Constitution Act 1975 that deals with this??
HAHA... you guys are getting shriller. He didn't actually vandalise at all. You should know Andrew.
He was actually very clever. You being whacked in Albert Park. Your wasting time doing this crap.
It is a smart electorate, and they are reading through the ALP spin. Oh and why don't you mention that the ALP votes with the Libs 72% of the time. oh thats right... it's called bi-partisanship when the Labor party votes with the Libs.
Many thanks for this information. As i had always thought the Greens hippies it is nice to know they are working wiht my boys and girls from Exhibition Street. I will surely vote for them.
Lara, it seems to me the word "vandalism" is synonymous with the word "Greens" ...
Double checked, a conviction for an offence potentially attracting a ten year sentence would most certainly see him bumped out of Parliament. Mind you he hasn't even been charged yet so it remains to be seen.
And yes the Greens should expect to do very well in Albert Park, no doubt about it. Although I hear on the grapevine that John Middleton and Greg Barber don't get on very well. Developing...
Picking up the point about bi-partisanship, it is a nonsense to say parties "vote" together when uncontentious legislation goes through unopposed by anyone. Votes occur during divisions, where there is a recorded vote and it's right there that we've seen the curious development of the Victorian Greens party voting with the Liberals 68% of the time.
They don't do it elsewhere, look at Bob Brown for example. So there's definitely something up.
From the ALP's point of view they're within their rights to say this is a betrayal of the values of the Greens party. It's a bit of left-on-left violence of the kind we celebrate.
But I think many conservatives I know are concerned not so much with the Greens voting with them, extra votes for nothing are always welcome, but what deals have been necessary to get these votes.
I know many inner-urban Liberals who were none too happy with the Liberals HTV at the last state election and simply refused to follow it because it was basically a vote for the extreme left Greens party.
While the Greens party are terrified of a debate on this issue because they know their base hates it, the question of why the extreme left and right of politics have teamed up so closely is a legitimate subject of debate. The arrangement they have entered into reflects poorly on both of them.
How is the Independent Liberal Prodos preferencing in Albert Park?
"is that when there is a division in the Legislative Council, the Greens party MP's vote with the Liberal party 68% of the time in divisions"
so why does so much of that 68% include things that aren't actually divisions. check your spreadsheet.
How can Bernie Finn vote with pinkos?
Lenin, Bernie does not vote with the Greens, the Greens vote with him. A subtle but important distinction.
it's true what they say - all warfare IS based on deception. that's why the ALP are so good at it.
Commenting by HaloScan
