It looked that way on paper, but dropping Head surely confirmed as one of the all-time classic selection blunders. Using his feet better than anyone #INDvAUS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Good morning and welcome to Hearing Block 4. I have been granted access to the media room but I'll be watching the first session from the gallery. I can see all the lawyers with my eyes. Stream is below:
Here is today's witness list. This morning's session will be focused on victims of the scheme. A warning in advance that there will be discussions of suicide.
I'm just not sure defending our public representatives for owning multiple investment properties, in the middle of a housing crisis, because 'everyone else is doing it' is quite as strong an argument as you think it is.
It is legal to own several investment properties. That's about all you can say for it. We're seeing that it's evidently very much a problem and a barrier to properly-considered federal housing policy and legitimate debate in the Parliament. I could be wrong, but I'm not.
This is not a 'let he without sin' situation, because no-one is actually proving themselves a legitimate spokesperson on housing issues other than Chandler-Mather. People are looking for explanations why this 'debate' was such a failure, why standard of representation is so poor.
I've briefly searched for evidence of Mr. Hannan's claim and I can't find any historical media reporting, from a professional outlet, that makes any reference to the '2000' figure delivered in Estimates in any other way to how it was described there.
It's possible they've been deleted since. Or he could be simply mistaken, or confused in reference to some belief about the response within DHS. As I said, it's certainly a belief on social media that I often have cause to push back on.