| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | The fetish for the ex PM continues.
According to sources, Brett Rutten has been shattered to find he's out of a job. Clarkson is also having to revisit his options as news emerged that Scomo installed himself as Essendon Coach 6 months ago |
They used the line on the Front Bar tonight.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Where do you think I stole it from?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith 
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| And The Front Bar stole it from social media |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | I get why Ministers would feel pissed off that the boss got sworn in to get their ministerial powers without telling them, but why would Albo be so worked up? |
That's pretty much my impression. The people who should be (and apparently are) most upset about this are Liberals, and fair enough I guess. But for me it's pretty low on the last government's list of sins, especially in the specific realm of things they hid from the public – for me, Morrison having a few secret extra ministerial responsibilities is dwarfed in importance by, for instance, that government's many abuses of national security legislation.
Edit: here's Morrison's justification:
https://www.facebook.com/scottmorrisonmp/posts/pfbid0agDnQAkaf8LsywUqYb3wHw55HNe4Pda5sKzBhWtAAqWDAe4G62yg7FXUGxEzumVcl
On face value, at least, it seems a fairly reasonable excuse, and if he's telling the truth, I hope that those still condemning it on principle weren't the first ones to leap to the defence of the various convention-breaking measures taken by the Andrews government during the pandemic that increased the governing party's powers or reduced democratic accountability. |
Perhaps David you need to cut down on the Avante Guarde films 😉 & catch up on some seriously good writing and analysis of the appalling conduct of Scotty to see the damage he’s wrought to the conventions of Australian Parliamentary democracy. I suggest amongst others try one of Australia’s most formidable writers Richard Flanagan:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/jabberwocky-meets-captain-ahab-as-morrison-races-down-the-rabbit-hole-20220818-p5baxi.html
I love the way this bloke writes. I want him for our first President.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| eddiesmith wrote: | | And The Front Bar stole it from social media |
Of course they did.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So how are we feeling in hindsight about Rudd’s "Gang of Four", in which he, Gillard, Swan and Tanner held secret meetings about decisions that went over the head of other ministers? At the time it just seemed emblematic of Rudd’s micromanaging style, and it obviously led in part to his downfall (just as Liberal ministers are right to be angry about Morrison’s conduct).
But are we to now think that this was not just a bad governing style but also a profound corruption of democracy and Westminster tradition – or is it only bad to make decisions related to other ministries if you don’t get yourself officially sworn in? Because that’s what a lot of people are saying we should be feeling about this Morrison business, and I’m just trying to understand where it sits from a historical perspective.
https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/02/kevin-rudd-and-julia-gillard-take-up-cudgels-again-in-abc-documentary
| Quote: | As 2009 drew to an end, criticism had grown of the government’s continued reliance on the four-person “gang of four” – Rudd, Gillard, treasurer Wayne Swan and finance minister Lindsay Tanner – rather than the cabinet.
According to Gillard the gang hadn’t been disbanded, despite what she described as “decision-making chaos ... because in Kevin’s view in particular he preferred to do business that way”.
And Rudd: “That is the most creative reconstruction of a political memory I have ever heard, I remember Julia in particular enjoyed and liked the relative secrecy of that small gathering.”
The program traverses the policy problems of Labor’s first two years, including the stimulus spending on school halls and pink batts, but dwells on the disastrous episode in 2009 when Kevin Rudd did a deal with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to stop Sri Lankan asylum-seekers by taking them back to Indonesia on an Australian customs ship – the Oceanic Viking.
Then immigration minister Chris Evans confirms on camera that neither he, nor his department, nor the national security committee of cabinet was consulted about the prime minister’s decision – which led to a month-long stand-off.
Even in retrospect, Rudd is unrepentant. “If there was a breakdown of the command structure of government about which ministerial office was engaged or not ... it is difficult to sustain that a prime minister has to physically pick up the phone to every affected bureaucrat and minister and say this is what is happening” was his response. |
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| You miss the constitutional issue. It's assuming responsibility as Minister without telling anyone that's the problem. In that case, a strong executive simply over-rode Cabinet and ignored a Minister. It's probably not good political governance - but no-one could sensibly suggest that there was some subversion of the principles of parliamentary sovereignty or ministerial accountability. It's common, in fact, for PMs of all political persuasions to make "Captain's calls" - that isn't a constitutional problem. It may or may not be sensible, depending upon the circumstances, but it isn't a constitutional usurpation. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Morrison's having a bit of fun with all the memes' putting himself in Sooshi mango. https://www.facebook.com/scottmorrisonmp
They responded with this.
Sooshi Mango
·
You can appoint yourself as a member of Sooshi Mango as long as we can appoint ourselves as minister of the Australian Taxation Office!
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
@David, I think your point above is apt, as is the comparison you made earlier about Andrews.
Morrison at least had himself sworn in to ministries, albeit on the quiet, and with 1 exception didn't use any of the powers. Andrews during 2020-21 basically subverted all normal government process and ran the state like a fiefdom, claiming health advice (incorrectly as has been shown) as justification while all the time working the CHO like a glove puppet.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | You miss the constitutional issue. It's assuming responsibility as Minister without telling anyone that's the problem. In that case, a strong executive simply over-rode Cabinet and ignored a Minister. It's probably not good political governance - but no-one could sensibly suggest that there was some subversion of the principles of parliamentary sovereignty or ministerial accountability. It's common, in fact, for PMs of all political persuasions to make "Captain's calls" - that isn't a constitutional problem. It may or may not be sensible, depending upon the circumstances, but it isn't a constitutional usurpation. |
Nail hit head. I’m surprised David would even think there’s some ‘relativity’ in this comparison. It’s all about the Conventions, Norms and Ministerial responsibility. The juxtaposition is simply irrelevant and basically misses the point. The closer analogy is Trump and Johnson (with differing consequences) both like Morrison have trashed normative political behaviour and trashed political convention.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Morrison's having a bit of fun with all the memes' putting himself in Sooshi mango. https://www.facebook.com/scottmorrisonmp
They responded with this.
Sooshi Mango
·
You can appoint yourself as a member of Sooshi Mango as long as we can appoint ourselves as minister of the Australian Taxation Office! |
I’d hardly call it fun on Morrison’s behalf but he is a marketing man after all. However he continues to miss the point and will continue to be a distraction (and headache for the Lib Gnats. However, as the astute Michelle Grattan points out Albo & his Government need to know when to pull back from the free kicks by Scotty.
There’s also a book coming out by the astute Liberal Party supporter Nikki Savva. Can’t wait 😛😂😊
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/the-scott-morrison-horror-show-will-continue-to-flare-burning-the-opposition-20220819-p5bb41.html
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | @David, I think your point above is apt, as is the comparison you made earlier about Andrews.
Morrison at least had himself sworn in to ministries, albeit on the quiet, and with 1 exception didn't use any of the powers. Andrews during 2020-21 basically subverted all normal government process and ran the state like a fiefdom, claiming health advice (incorrectly as has been shown) as justification while all the time working the CHO like a glove puppet. |
What do you say is the problem under Victoria’s constitutional arrangements with anything Andrews did? I’m not asking your view about what he should or shouldn’t have done - still less whether you agree with any of it - but what was constitutionally inappropriate? The Executive has extensive prerogative powers (derived ultimately from the Monarch) - exercising those is a matter for the head of the Executive. The problem with what Morrison did is the very opposite - the Parliament vests powers by statute in departments for which Ministers are responsible and our system of government depends upon those Ministers answering to Parliament for the exercise of those powers.
I accept that this is an area of some complexity - and it’s fine if you don’t or can’t get it - but simply asserting that what Morrison did wasn’t (in your opinion) as autocratic as Andrews’ modus operandi doesn’t even begin to grapple with the constitutional issues. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What constitutional issues?
The Governer general approved it and has said "nothing to see here"
All of the commentary says it would have been fine, but he should have told people.
I haven't seen a single piece pointing out a constitutional issue, just a breach of custom and practice.
If you believe there is a constitutional issue, please explain.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | What constitutional issues?
The Governer general approved it and has said "nothing to see here"
All of the commentary says it would have been fine, but he should have told people.
I haven't seen a single piece pointing out a constitutional issue, just a breach of custom and practice.
If you believe there is a constitutional issue, please explain. |
It's a constitutional issue because our constitutional framework depends entirely upon the conventions of responsible government in addition to the written constitution. You say it's just a 'breach of custom and practice' - that's the point. These customs and practices are at the absolute heart of our system of government. It's hard to think of a more central convention than the chain of accountability that holds ministers responsible to parliament. It simply can't work if parliament doesn't know who the ministers are (nevermind the problem of other ministers including those being 'second chaired' don't realise they are being 'shadowed'). |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ Don't worry - Stui is determined to pretend that I'm not one of Australia's leading constitutional lawyers. It's kind of touching when he says to me that something isn't a constitutional issue - like he might know. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
