 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
I just read about this. WTF? Did I read right? Health, finance, treasury, home affairs and resources are not peripheral ministries. Since when does anyone entrust one person to commandeer all of those roles, let alone a news cycle chaser during a crisis?
I would be livid, as I vote very much on the quality of the team in those ministries, something even more obvious in a parliamentary democracy. It's complete democratic subversion; control without accountability, party rule without a party. Sure, people would support short-term measures or a longer stint in control of peripheral ministries, but this is beyond comprehension.
It's the complete opposite of what he's trying to say. The problem is a lack of hands and focused insight during a crisis in the most important roles in the nation. It's miles too hard for one person to be across that many things at the best of times in a small-medium company, let alone someone of very modest intelligence like himself, at a moment when a concentration of intellect was essential, overseeing a nation.
So he was every bit as authoritarian as he looked; he was just another deceitful snake dressed up in faux Christian garb.
This is far bigger than some of you have been lulled into believing. Just imagine it's a public company for a moment a tiny fraction of the size and importance of a nation, and during crisis. Most people bring help in at those moments.
Are you all sure he wasn't secretly your mothers' consulting gynaecologist during that time as well?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
 |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ You did read it right PTID. It’s gobsmacking.
_________________
“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: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | 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'). |
Thank you for the most concise explanation I've read anywhere, that makes sense.
Bonus points for demonstrating that a clear point can be made without unnecessary condescension and ego stroking.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| 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. |
I listened to this interview with constitutional law expert Anne Twomey (from a few days ago when some information still wasn’t known) and it was fairly illuminating. One thing she states clearly towards the end is that the constitution does not require ministerial appointments to be made public. She also points out that, when ministries are divided up, it’s not always made public which minister is responsible for which specific issues. So I guess I’m also wondering what the constitutional problem is; the Governor-General, for his part, seems to believe he was acting within the limits of the constitution.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/a-constitutional-law-expert-on-morrison-s-secret-portfolios/101336684
So we’re left with questions on a few different levels (and please correct me if any of these conclusions are wrong):
1) Was it technically wrong, i.e. did Morrison break the law, or act in breach of the constitution? No, so far as I can tell.
2) Was it wrong in principle, i.e. was it bad practice? Yes, because in a democracy we should know who is in charge of which ministry, and such things should not be hidden from the public or parliament.
3) Was it ethically wrong, i.e. did it lead to bad outcomes? Apparently not, except for one case of Morrison overriding the resources minister. In this I still fail to see the fundamental difference between this and what Rudd did – in both cases the PM was acting in someone else’s portfolio without any public awareness that he had that power, and in both cases the relevant minister was blindsided. I think most party rooms would consider that inappropriate and insulting to the ministers in question, and see it as a sign of a leader unduly keen to take power into their own hands. I also think that finding out the PM was secretly in charge of your ministry without even telling you would be an even graver and more alarming situation. That’s where a lot of the genuine and justified outrage is coming from. But that’s intra-party and intra-government politics; it doesn’t really feed down all that much to the relationship between government and voting public.
If you asked the average person on the street, this probably wouldn’t bother them as they expect that voting for a government means enshrining power in a PM to make ultimate decisions, and the question of ministerial responsibility would tend to seem like a fairly arcane one. They would probably also expect those decisions to be made public, which is something that the last government didn’t do on numerous occasions, usually for "national security" reasons (a justification that was often exploited and misused). Maybe Morrison’s secret usurpation of ministerial power is a worrying precedent; maybe it’s grounds for reform to prevent it happening again. But in most meaningful contexts it really does seem like small beans compared to the serious perversions of the democratic process that have occurred in recent times.
The specifics of ministerial duties and who does what in government is also something that I, as I think a relatively switched-on person who probably follows politics more closely than the average person, have never really thought to care about. Ministries switch around all the time, and we know PMs make "captain’s calls" anyway. Perhaps Morrison had more sinister intentions that he never got around to putting in play, but unless he’s done something illegal then this does seem like something of a storm in a teacup to me.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ You've got to grasp the distinction between "captain's calls" as an exercise of prerogative power and the exercise of power conferred by Parliament upon specific ministers under statute. I've already explained that - and people keep posting as if it isn't a fundamental distinction - this is the legal equivalent of driving at full speed down the highway on the wrong side of the road.
I'm done, though. I don't know why I bother trying to explain how these things actually operate. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Except that driving full speed down the wrong side of the highway is clearly illegal.
_________________
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: | |
|
^^ David that’s a bizarre definition of Ethics “no harm was done”
That’s also quite an extraordinary piece of minimisation to rationalise away the gravitas of this shocking behaviour by Scotty. Perhaps you should consider a job in marketing 😜.
Malcolm Farr (née Daily Telegraph and now The Guardian also nails it. Scotty’s bizarre presser where he intimates he is the victim 😂 sneaky bastard.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2022/aug/19/why-australia-cannot-simply-move-on-from-scott-morrisons-many-ministries
David if you listened to Anne Twomey you should be au fait with her serious criticism of Scotty.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
David, it's also wrong technically. I get that ministries aren't always aligned to expertise (disgracefully enough), but that's where visibility becomes crucial as a backstop. Now, I know this is a problem that long precedes Morrison, but this case is a quadruple whammy: (a) no expertise, (b) no accountability and visibility, (c) the universal political problem of no serious or proven management and leadership record, and (d) a massive moment of crisis.
WTF then is being offered here that would be accepted in any other serious domain in life?
Basically, you get nothing except news cycle management, which is exactly how Morrison has approached the problem, thereby reasoning he's done nothing out of the ordinary.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Quote: | Anthony Albanese never expected the solicitor-general would find his prime ministerial predecessor acted illegally in secretly taking control of five ministries.
The legality of what took place was never at the heart of the new government's thinking.
The whole reason Scott Morrison was able to instruct the Governor-General to make him effectively a duplicate minister at five ministries was because it was legal. |
Unlike driving down the wrong side of the road at speed.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/solicitor-general-advice-morrison-albanese-secret-ministry/101360438
Interestingly the Solicitor General was only asked about the single portfolio where Morrison actually used his powers. Health was a different argument because at least others (if not the public) knew about it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/behind-the-scenes-of-scott-morrisons-power-grab/101358232
I am curious as to why Albanese is pushing this so hard, I can't believe he's so offended by the principle, generally politicians follow Groucho Marx's ideals.
Labor's been elected, he's PM, Morrison hardly needs discrediting anymore (he's done most of the work himself) and he's hardly a threat going forward. Yeah it's standard operational procedure for every new government to spend the first 12 months in office bagging out the previous administration, but that's usually to set themselves up to dodge election committments.
_________________
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: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Quote: | Anthony Albanese never expected the solicitor-general would find his prime ministerial predecessor acted illegally in secretly taking control of five ministries.
The legality of what took place was never at the heart of the new government's thinking.
The whole reason Scott Morrison was able to instruct the Governor-General to make him effectively a duplicate minister at five ministries was because it was legal. |
Unlike driving down the wrong side of the road at speed.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/solicitor-general-advice-morrison-albanese-secret-ministry/101360438
Interestingly the Solicitor General was only asked about the single portfolio where Morrison actually used his powers. Health was a different argument because at least others (if not the public) knew about it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/behind-the-scenes-of-scott-morrisons-power-grab/101358232
I am curious as to why Albanese is pushing this so hard, I can't believe he's so offended by the principle, generally politicians follow Groucho Marx's ideals.
Labor's been elected, he's PM, Morrison hardly needs discrediting anymore (he's done most of the work himself) and he's hardly a threat going forward. Yeah it's standard operational procedure for every new government to spend the first 12 months in office bagging out the previous administration, but that's usually to set themselves up to dodge election committments. |
I think you’re well understating just how far Morrison trashed convention and just how far he went with not just this but a whole raft of usual political behaviour by previous PM’s. It’s a huge departure from usual indeed normative political behaviour.
It wasn’t just a bit of Pork barrelling but he went for the whole sty when it came to the issue of sports rorts and similarly with the car parking issues. Further this extended to the way he ran the government.
That then was reflected in his callous disregard for political convention namely the lack of accountability and responsibility be being so secretive not just to his political enemies but to his colleagues.
The Libs are on board with not only an investigation but a likely legal remedy to close this loophole.
Accordingly I don’t actually think Albanese is running it that hard merely holding the person and people to account. This too will help the Libs by affording the Libs an opportunity to say(in effect) it wasn’t us but the calculating c*nt Scotty from Marketing.
_________________
“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: | 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. |
Time for you to read Stephen's advice, I think. It's not too bad - but then, he did learn from the best. Because he had it in his 1992 Con & Admin lecture notes, he didn't need to read about the question on Nick's before he advised that
| Quote: | To the extent that the public and the parliament are not informed of appointments that have been made under s 64 of the constitution, the principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined.
From the moment of his appointment he was both legally and politically responsible for the administration of that department, and yet he could not be held accountable for the way that he performed (or did not perform) that role. |
Thus, Stephen concluded that the appointments were:
| Quote: | | inconsistent with the conventions and practices that form an essential part of the system of responsible government. |
Only someone who had failed "Introduction to Public Law" - or, perhaps, never studied it - would fail to grasp the basic concept that a breach of constitutional convention just is a constitutional issue.
Of course, the gist of Stephen's advice can be reduced to one sentence for the peanut gallery - and, indeed it was:
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | It's assuming responsibility as Minister without telling anyone that's the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Quote: | Anthony Albanese never expected the solicitor-general would find his prime ministerial predecessor acted illegally in secretly taking control of five ministries.
The legality of what took place was never at the heart of the new government's thinking.
The whole reason Scott Morrison was able to instruct the Governor-General to make him effectively a duplicate minister at five ministries was because it was legal. |
Unlike driving down the wrong side of the road at speed.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/solicitor-general-advice-morrison-albanese-secret-ministry/101360438
Interestingly the Solicitor General was only asked about the single portfolio where Morrison actually used his powers. Health was a different argument because at least others (if not the public) knew about it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/behind-the-scenes-of-scott-morrisons-power-grab/101358232
I am curious as to why Albanese is pushing this so hard, I can't believe he's so offended by the principle, generally politicians follow Groucho Marx's ideals.
Labor's been elected, he's PM, Morrison hardly needs discrediting anymore (he's done most of the work himself) and he's hardly a threat going forward. Yeah it's standard operational procedure for every new government to spend the first 12 months in office bagging out the previous administration, but that's usually to set themselves up to dodge election committments. |
Yeah, make the point and move on. Mind you, they probably think they have to make mileage of everything in advance of something going against them. But once the point is made, move on, especially if the opposition are showing signs of being more moderate.
Who's the oppo leader now? Are they vaguely sane? If it's another Glib culture warrior the well will quickly be poisoned and it will be back to tit-for-tat. The Glibs/Tories/GOP and their extremist media army drive the whole thing, so the only way to counter them is to out-news and out-scandal them. And so the BS inflation consumes every joule of people's already limited brains.
That's why I didn't mind Moderate Malcolm. It's just a pity there aren't more moderates on the right so serious discussion can take place for a sustained period.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Dutton is now leader of the opposition. Whether he is vaguely sane appears to be entirely subjective. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
And Dutton must be loving this ongoing fixation on Morrison. It takes any heat off him and actually gives him the chance to look good in comparison, when in reality he’s way more of a cynical extremist than Morrison, who was primarily a blundering oaf.
I guess you could look at it this way. What's better for the Liberal Party over the next three years as it seeks to regain government: to be tainted by the ineptitude, calculated cruelty and culture wars that characterised the entire party over the last decade, or for the problems of at least the last three years to be fobbed off as all the fault of a bad apple PM gone rogue? This is much bigger than Morrison or the Liberals, incidentally – it's a lesson in how a pantomime politics of individual vice and virtue ultimately serves powerful interests.
None of that has anything to do with whether prime ministerial misconduct should be reported, condemned or punished; of course it should. This secret minister thing is absolutely newsworthy and in the public interest. But I would also caution against devoting too much focus and energy to overcooked scandals like this and painting Morrison as some Trumpian bête noire, because it can be something of an own goal – for those who hope that this news story might serve partisan or ideological objectives, at any rate.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Hugh Parkinson is quite illuminating
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQzdhJku8ds
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
