Ombudsman will,and so he should.
But is it ok to use the senate this way.
Is it honest.
What do we expect from our elected people.
I think she should be replaced.

clearly special intrests should be openly declared
if i use your questions..its only fair i attribute them back to you

if i ask you to ask me
to reply a certain question
knowing i got a clever answer
[that suits the caucus and the questioners adgenda]
thats collusion to decieve

both sides colluded
both sides reveal they are unfit for public service
both partyies to the setup..have colluded to subvert the purpose.of question ans answer..by governmental format

DESIGNED to do what?

to get at facts
or paper over cracks?

it boils down to who sought what advantages
for whom

did the public get good service..
or other intrests got service
to public disadvantage

Dear Belly,

According to an article in The Age newspaper - the
Ombudsman had expected to have the opportunity to
"ventilate his views at a committee hearing in May
but he hadn't been called to appear."

Apparently, he was concerned. He then briefed Senator Sarah Hanson-
Young about his immigration detention related concerns and
subsequently provided her some possible questions to her
office as a guide. This was as a result of the absence of
another parliamentary committee.

The Ombudsman chose this unorthodox approach to bring his
concerns to the parliament and the public.

Of course it wasn't a wise route to take. However, the questions
concerned administration of government policy and were not
political in nature.

No. Senator Hanson-Young should not resign.

I'm sure that both she and the Ombudsman deeply regret
their unwise actions. But that's all they were. They don't
need to be crucified for them. Otherwise we wouldn't have
many pollies left in Canberra - would we.

I got the impression from this that the intent was to get the opportunity to raise issues that the structure of the system otherwise might have not allowed.

The other parties were upset because the usual tactics of avoiding the uncomfortable issues was circumvented.

Better if those who see their role in politics as not involving open and accountable government resigned.

In a similar vein I think that the concept of cabinet secrecy is fundamentally flawed except where national security is not at stake. Those who pay the bill's have a fundamental right to the truth of what's going on rather then the scripted spin which happens to suit the political ambitions of the the PM or premier in question or their respective parties. As I've suggested elsewhere the decision about what's secret should be made by someone without a vested partisan interest in the outcome.

Cabinet secrecy, processes which hinder ombudsmen from raising uncomfortable issues etc serve the political interests of those who are supposed to serve the people rather than serving the people.

R0bert

Quite so Lexi, there would be none left, none at all.

Asher was silly to take this route, and even sillier to deal with Hanson-Young, a hardly competent Senator but certainly overly ambitious.

Our politicians lie and deceive, mostly deceive themselves since few believe anything they say these days, on a daily, no, an hourly, no a minute by minute, basis.

Just heard Bowen has 'raised questions' about the 'probity' of Asher and his actions.

Hahahaha, Chris Bowen?

The man who supports Abbott's immigration policies? Hahahahahaha.

'Probity?' Hahahahaha.

Oh dear, what a larf!

im sick opf debaiting abstract theories
what were the questions specificly

did the greenie sek a 'briefing'
or did the minester lobby
[its one or the other]

from the background chatter i deduce
the topic wasnt specificly re the topic of the inquiry
but we got so many clever people here[lexie ammonimumnitrate]

how about it...what were the suggested qquestions
what were the actual questions

and more specificly what was the reply
[in full]..please

i want to judge nuances here
you know..judge the apple..rather than apples in general

Nothing abstract about this OUG.
The bloke is employed to keep the b^&%DS honest.
He gave his self up, to an up and coming idiot.
I have little doubt Hanson Young has set her sex back 20 years with shifty and dishonest behavior.
If she was from any other party my views would not change.

belly leaving aside the wisdom of working with that particular senator what do you think he did wrong in the context of keeping them honest?

I get the impression that there was some stuff he wanted aired at the inquiry which he doubted he would get the opportunity to raise if the normal course of events occurred. Might have been a silly choice to do what he did but I don't understand the outrage from someone who seems to want more accountable government.

The outrage should be directed at those who manipulate the system to hide stuff that's not politically convenient, not at those who try and expose it.

R0bert

Fair question RObert.
The position he holds is not one this country has always had.
As you know we stole the name, and idea from one of the Nordic states.
His role,as I see it, was to hold the Government at arms length.
To use his power if needed against the Government.
I, increasingly, fear dishonesty in politics.
And he acted dishonestly.
And, while I gain no Friends for this, I fear too, passionate, a Greens friendly leaking from Public servants, including very strong views ABC media, all of it, can be very much a forum for such.
12% of Australians, must as we all must, not under value honesty.
The man, could have leaked if needs must, but acting on prepared questions?
How much more is done this way.
The lady senator must go.
Ute gate was constructed lies but this is no less wrong.

Belly,
Correction! The female Senator must go. she is no lady.

Of course she should resign for being party to the fraud.

She should resign, but will not. No concept of ethics.

Whilst I think it improper that the integrity the ombudsman's has been compromised, and in the end it comes down too that. I am uncomfortable with Bob Browns claims of political assassination. I think firing shots over the bow of the Gov't in this situation is unfortunate.

On this one Bob should pull his head in, and consider this affair a political misjudgement, as the Ombudsman himself has ultimately and sacrificially concluded.

Belly thanks for the answer. Given how often most of our pollies take part in deception and back the deception of others as well as the long history of Dorothy Dixer questions I'm not seeing anything about this that leads to calls for the Greens senator to resign that would not also involve calls for the resignation of the front benches of both the major parties and a fair number of others.

I'd like a much more honest government but singling out the Greens Senator over this looks mostly like partisan politics. Compared to the no carbon tax promise and what's followed this is trivial.

R0bert

I haven't had the opportunity to see any of the lead up to this particular incident but there seems to be general confusion about the role of the Ombudsman (OmbudsPerson)

In reality, they have a very limited jurisdiction, limited to matters such as the administration of the law.

They certainly aren't there to keep anyone honest, as *Belly* asserts. It would be nice if they were, but experience has shown me that that is clearly not the case.

Specifics of what little they actually do is on their web site.

..

Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 20 October 2011 8:55:16 AM

" ... Better if those who see their role in politics as not involving open and accountable government resigned.

In a similar vein I think that the concept of cabinet secrecy is fundamentally flawed except where national security is not at stake ... "

Yes, I tend to agree. I can't begin to express how sick of these people I am with their duplicity, petty lies and obfuscation.

RObert no way! I challenge your view I single Hanson Young out.
She has singled her self out.
I see this.
We all must demand honesty from every politician.
Only in the fact funding was involved was ANY OTHERS INVOLVED.
The well worn path of leaking still exists.
And is well traveled, it could have been used.
Sitting down, with one of those who you are supposed to keep honest.
Planning, even haveing the questions rehearsed?
A danger has always existed , we tend to make less of the crimes of the enemy's of our enemy's.
We should judge on facts, seems likely Labor under funded him.
And that he left because more share my views than do not, on EVERY SIDE.
Except the Greens.
Lets note, what green, we have many here,who is here defending her?
What would we be seeing/hearing/.
If Labor/Liberals had CONSPIRED WITH HIM.
It is Hugely important that wrong be seen as wrong, that this rising star beheld accountable for this act of dishonesty.
In politics those things matter much more than protecting our own side.
IF not we care little about better governance.

its hard to say this
but we have shot ourselves in the foot...[again]

here it seems was an honest man
charged with doing the impossable
a man honest and true..cleverly used by howard..to feign[pretend]..honesty and accountability of a bad system..used by vile people

it seems howrd wanted his honour aas a shield
against boat people critisism by the media[and others]
to then make sure he hasnt the minesterial acces..nore funds
to fix nor change anything.

[in short to put up a good guy..[indesputably honerable and true
but to make sure..his good dont spoil the plans of those with vile hearts..[a man to shield them..to hide behind his honour..while doing great dishonour

the suilence..and differences..betwen this man of honour
and that unionist with dishonour..[and many free lunches and hookers on his union credit card]..stands stark..that scum was defended..this man..[more angel of good]..the contrasting silence stands mute..

we wouldnt be worthy
to loosen his shoelaces

thus the greenie..who saw honourable works..
and tried to help..such a one..*in honour
achieve only that true and honourable..
SHOULD NOT RESIGN..!

infact all who kept silence
stand condemmed

we have innocent blood on our very souls
but even worse both sides
of the two party
demonic

autocracy
stand condemmed

they defended loudly and long
a bad unionist..who refused to bow
then stood mute by..to allow an inocent man to be hung
sacrificed upon the alter of rightiousness...of the unrightious

the questrions..AND their answers
stand as holy..for they were asked by holy conscience

goodness has seen the vile exposed
for what they didnt do..for this honest man

and those he was charged to protect
but...*prevented from protecting..!..

OUG the bloke has only been in this role for 12 months.
If his actions, and those of his partner in crime are honest I am blind.

Some admirable sentiments *Belly* but as of lst I heard, it was not illegal for politicians to lie. As much as can be done is to expose them in the public limelight when we can catch them out and hope that people won't vote for them again.

But then, that can be difficult when there is so little quality journalism, and where politicians really are just given a mic to spout off any old codswallop and thus the expression, "feeding the chooks."

I would point out to you that successive guvment administrations from the blue and the red of politics have had ample opportunity to create laws to prohibit the promulgation of untruths, but you will find that this is one of those issues where the mainstream of politics are as thick as thieves and that they have less than zero will to do so.

..

Alternatively, I believe that the *Greens* would be prepared to create appropriate legislation, but until the electorate at large grows a brain and stops voting for red/blue, it is highly unlikely to happen.

..

Certainly, whenever you hear the politicians, in my view, start talking about so called "National Security" you can bet that anything they say publicly is littered with lies, and if not, it is extremely rare that provide the "full story."

..

Akin too other tin pot guvments around the world, their political survival is predicated on keeping people ignorant, as if the scroll was rolled out in a really transparent way, and people could witness who gets paid what for doing what, and what the guvment really gets up to overseas for example, there would in my mind undoubtedly be an uproar.

belly watch 730 report and lateline intervieuws
mate they picked an honest guy
then cut him off at the knees

ignored anything he had to say
add in the silence mate

compare that to those speaking up
for that slimeball with his union credit card

i know it hurts to be wrong mate...but what do you do
when your only contact into govt ignores you..[and those your entrusted to defend..!]

i would search for the links[at abc]
but im over looking up things no one reads

i hate greenies mate
they conned me into allowing them
to taks a monthly payment from my bank
then refused to allow me into a meeting i stumbled across

i know they are scamers
i know they are conned
i know that carbon tax sceme is fraud

but in this case the public servant was only trying
to do the job he was put there to fix..[so it appears]

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3344736.htm

tony..""to be fair,..this is an independent advocate
who's meant to be independent..of the political process,
including independent..of the Greens,..the Government,..the Opposition;

he's meant to be plotting..his own course
and yet he appears to have been very close..to your position.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well,..look,
I think if the only crime..that he has committed is putting in writing the concerns..he wants to be able to raise in a public/forum because he believed..that they had been suppressed,..well,..I think that is a decent thing..for a person..who desperately believes its/his job,..

most importantly..than all,..is..to ensure that he
looks after the cases..that come across his desk and
that..he has..the resources to do that.

The issues in immigration detention are chaotic...The skyrocketing suicide rates..there was a man on the roof of the Darwin detention centre last night who attempted to hang himself..and had to be dragged down by his fellow detainees.

And that's..this is happening on a daily basis.

Long-term detention is creating this problem...The minister doesn't want to hear about it...*He didn't want to hear about it from Mr Asher;..*he doesn't want to hear about it from the Greens;

he doesn't want to hear..about it being-
he doesn't want to hear it..being spoken about..in the media.

This is a...

TONY JONES: OK..alright,..go ahead.
No,..finish that.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: This is absolutely punishment..for Mr Asher for sticking up his head,..doing his job and advocating for the very independence..of the reviews that..*he is meant to conduct.

If you wanted to silence..one of your critics,
if you wanted to shut/down..the ability
of an independent reviewer..*to not do their job,..to not embarrass you,..you would cut their funding,..

and that's what we've seen.

TONY JONES:..If you had been more subtle..with your questioning,
if you'd made your questions distant..in some way..from the ones that he sent you in that email,..could you have protected him?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:..Look,..I think it's..the questions
that I asked..were important to be put...I believed that

and I still fundamentally believe
this was information..that had to be/put..on the public record.

quote continues

I think ...

TONY JONES: But do you regret at all the way you put the questions, because when you look at the email and the questions side by side, it looks simply like collusion?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: I don't regret it, Tony. I was confronted with an option and I think it's pretty naive to think that politicians aren't confronted with these options on a daily basis.

You get information and you make a choice: is this information that should be in the public record or is it not? I made the decision that it was. I firmly believe it was.

Mr Asher believed that it was. And it's - the issue here is why did he have to go through this process? And one of the things that the Greens have said this week and one of the things we will continue to do is move for reform to enable a parliamentary committee to oversee the activities of the Ombudsman so that he can automatically be able to put to Parliament these issues, these concerns, and that there is some oversight.

Because it was put to me today, and I think this is a question that's worth considering: the independent Ombudsman has all these roles to review executive government and review government agencies, but his funding and his access to the Parliament is at the behest of the executive government.

So, let's actually try and do something to reform this system so this doesn't have to happen like this. In New South Wales even, the Ombudsman there has a Parliamentary committee that can oversee the activities so that the Ombudsman can come to them and say, "Look, this is what's going on, this is what I'm working on."

In New Zealand, in Britain, in South Africa even, in Thailand, this is how the Ombudsman's positions are managed, and I think that's something we should be looking at.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3344730.htm

*OUG* I find your report somewhat disturbing. Scammed by Greenies you say?

..

Would you care to elaborate in the public interest?

..

" ... Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. ... "

(Who said that anyway, does anyone know?)

Dear DreamOn,

I think it was Lord Acton.

"If absolute power corrupts absolutely,
does absolute powerlessness make you pure?"
(Harry Shearer, American actor).

And as someone else asked - "Where does that leave God?"

It is a shame Asher felt he need to resign whether pushed or self-motivated.

I doubt if you will see many politicians calling for Sarah Hanson-Young's resignation. It would set a precedent for all Members and Senators who have put questions in Estimates proceedings based on discussions and influence from public servants (Doroth Dixers). What about scenarious such as the Godwin Grech 'Utegate' affair where the Liberal Party quite happily ignored established Codes of Conduct in obtaining information. Did Malcolm Turnbull resign?

I think it was Bob Katter who said of the two major parties '...same product, different brand' applies.

RObert's comments mirror mine for the most part especially the idea of transparency. What is wrong with public servants ensuring relevant questions are asked about the function of their departments. It shouldn't just be a privilege of the senior executive but for all public servants to be able to contribute to the process. Sometimes it is those who are working at the coalface who experience the effects of departmental funding and policy changes.

Why does everything 'government' have to be held in secret. Who is representing who?

I must say congrats to the person posting as Dream On, big improvement noted well done.
The dislike of major party's still there however.
And you said you are not up to speed on this issue.
OUG, MATE, Brother!
This bloke cut his own legs of.
He cheated!
Those of us who put the boot in to Turnbull, for beleiving a public servants lies, can not avoid this.
Hansen Young, a party proud to be different, telling us it is better, CHEATED!
The silly wrong, thing, to feel offended only if it is them others doing things wrong is a special blindness.
Again, if we found out Gillard or Abbott did this?

Talking about so called "cheating?"

Question Time used to be a democratic safeguard,
now its a farce. Questions on notice are defensively
answered by public servants. Questions without notice
receive irrelevant, rambling and propagandist replies.
However, both the Government and the Opposition also
use up the time with Dorothy Dixers where
sycophantic and ambitious backbenchers ask questions
for which the Minister has a well prepared answer
boasting about their own and their government's brilliance.
Cheating indeed. Everyone does it.

Senator Hanson-Young was no doubt a good bank teller; she just seems to have risen above her natural level of ability.

Belly I suspect that if the ombudsmen was caught leaking the faked outrage would be even greater. I wonder if he could have faced criminal sanction if caught doing so.

The real crime here is the manipulation of the system the major parties use to avoid being accountable for their actions and to stop those employed by the taxpayer from speaking off message publicly.

I can't see any way that either of those involved in this incident have tried to gain personal benefit from their actions or attempted to hide anything except their collusion.

R0bert

Lexi, with respect question time has always been as it is.
In almost every way, the word Dorothy Dixer,used to describe an opportunity to talk the government up is older than me.
Abbott's behavior is the only thing different.
Cheating? hardly but if you wish it will change nothing .
RObert,come, this is not about every wrong every side does us.
It is about,tell me I am wrong, A person filling a roll I THINK the ALP introduced.
The very name, inferred separate powers to over see Government actions INDEPENDENTLY .
Without fear or favor.
Greens came in to existence to be different, they are held by their followers to be different, more accountable.
Now leaks can be untraceable, he could have leaked with safety.
But he sat and rehearsed questions he gave one party!
I thank him, for going,for showing us the Greens pay only lip service to their promises.
Here, now,we see why in no more than three federal elections,the dreams that are the greens will die.
Australians do not trust them.
They acted here poorly,and defending them by throwing mud at other party's for unrelated actions is telling.
I am convinced it proves point, it is known they acted poorly.

R0bert, the problem as I see it is that the Ombudsman stepped outside the bounds of probity when he enlisted a partisan senator as a "collaborator".

The role of the Ombudsman is to ensure that the process of public administration is done properly, that the procedures are followed and that the procedures are fair and reasonable.

By stepping outside the procedural bounds of his own role, Asher left himself no option but to tender his resignation, since he undermined the position's claim to superior ethical judgement, exercised without fear or favour..

It seems to me that there are few Parliamentarians who would not understand that this is an important role and that undermining it in the way Asher and Hanson-Young did is not in the interests of democracy.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the party which most embodies the philosophy of "the end justifying the means" would be the one to cause this problem, nor that their least competent and most publicity-hungry member (except Sideshow Bob" would be the individual singles out.

Nor is it surprising that she'd not have the ethical backbone to stand by Asher, who at least had the decency to do the right thing.

Roll on the next election - send the fairies back to the bottom of the garden.

Sometime after the Greens came in to being.
After I had got past my dislike for the unwashed nature of SOME of the truly lost who supported them.
I considered them a force for good.
Come, be honest, many of us did, briefly for some, for me it lasted ten years.
Poor C J Morgan, a poster I miss and respect still, once joined arm in verbal arm,as I told him of handing out Greens HTV how to votes with Labors.
We clashed after that.
My thought, that they better represented conservation, may take up the dead and buried Democrats Keep the B,s honest mission?
No I got it wrong, I have seen the most radical, most truly radical climb on their back.
And I see, every day, this Hansen Young and others, show they actually think they are our conscience!
And using such as this, sitting with the very person who was tasked with ensuing HONESTY and crafting questions to Deceive a parliamentary inquiry.
Look, at this thread, find me a green just one.
Who came here to say it was wrong.
Our country's politics is not as bad as commented on by every one.
But remember ,do not look for honesty in this group.

"And using such as this, sitting with the very person who was tasked with ensuing HONESTY and crafting questions to Deceive a parliamentary inquiry."

Belly, I'm still trying to see where the deceit lay other than that they had colluded. Wasn't the intent to give the ombudsmen the opportunity to expose some stuff that the others didn't want exposed?

Antiseptic's point about the damage to the role when the ombudsmen steps outside procedure in his own role makes sense, however when it comes to disgust at the behaviour of pollies those who play the system to muffle or silence messages they don't want heard bother me a lot more than the actions of Hanson-Young in this instance.

The Greens are a challenge to your side of politics just as One-Nation has been to the coalition. There are a bunch of reasons for that, the main parties are not radical enough for some, the spin and lies put out by the majors will disgust enough others that the more direct approach of the extreme parties will have some appeal. For some it will be a single issue where the majors approach is utterly unacceptable.

R0bert

RObert colluded? from one tasked with honesty.
Is the fact you see greens as Labors enemy's your reason for not seeing this as wrong.
Tell me Friend,if it was a LABOR member and the now forced out of office man?
Would the blood and entrails still be dragged on the streets by your side.
And if one of yours by my side.
Be assured, I think as I do because NO PUBLIC SERVANT/POLITICIANS should have acted this way.
Is demanding honesty to be seen as partisan?

"Is the fact you see greens as Labors enemy's your reason for not seeing this as wrong."

I really don't think so. Maybe you should be asking yourself if you'd be as bothered if it was a deceit that hurt the coalition rather than Labor. I don't really see the Greens as Labors enemy in the same way I didn't see One Nation as the Coalitions enemy.

I don't think the extremists tend to do well except where the major parties are clearly failing to find way's of addressing their constituents concerns. Labor has failed to come up with humane ways of dealing with refugee's, it's environmental policies have not been seen as credible, they failed to address issues such as same sex marriage etc. The coalition had failed to address the real concerns many felt about extremes of PC and aspects of multiculturalism that were not working for much of their constituent base. They had not dealt with many of the concerns about free trade and the impact on local jobs. That gives scope for more extreme parties to put simple messages which resonate with those concerns. Rather than seeing those parties as the enemy they should be seen as a feedback mechanism which tells you about the issues you've either not addressed or have not done so in a way that works for your voters.

The answers the more extreme parties come up with may be wrong but that does not make the concerns irrelevant.

The actions of the ombudsmen and the Greens senator do appear to be wrong but compared to the antics of Julia and most of the other's making up the front benches of both sides of parliament it seems a pretty small wrong and seemingly done to bring about good.

R0bert

RObert you can be seen mate to be on the back foot here.
Using Silly Gillard and Labors wrongs is the evidence.
See it is unrelated to our subject, even if true.
Now you show under standing.
Greens and one Nation both extremes in my view became trouble for both sides.
Goggle Abbott's role, in killing that party, unclean actions.
Greens are assisting to dig their own grave.
I believe totally your side and mine will take them on.
In fact in the service of all voters.
Preferences should not end up with them.
No more, bet on it, than three elections and they are powerless forever.
They climbed on the back of discontent last time but not the next, the DD to follow, and it will, is going to return senate to wishes of most voters.

*R0bert*

" ... Belly, I'm still trying to see where the deceit lay other than that they had colluded. Wasn't the intent to give the ombudsmen the opportunity to expose some stuff that the others didn't want exposed? ... "

..

*R0bert*

" ... The actions of the ombudsmen and the Greens senator do appear to be wrong but compared to the antics of Julia and most of the other's making up the front benches of both sides of parliament it seems a pretty small wrong and seemingly done to bring about good. ... "

Indeed the OmbudsPerson was allegedly right up the guvment over issues with administrative processes to do with the Asylum Seeker centres and I suspect they are pleased to be rid of him in favor of some "Yes" person.

Incidentallly, I am told that the singles in the centres are not allowed to have any "rumpy pumpy." I wonder if one of *Belly's* labour parties mates would care to provide them a V.I.P. card for the *Guvna's Pleasure* in Sydney and other parts before they let them loose int he community?

(Oh, I also acknowledge a great interview by John Mendalo (a former head of the immigration department at the time of fraser from memory, who largely debunked a lot of the propagated myths on this issue) with Jim Middleton recently and note that plane arriving Asylum Seekers are already processed in the community.))

I also acknowledge some good work by Alan Jones on 7:30 in the defense of free speech. He was challenged on the grounds of using abusive language and bringing down the office of the prime minister.

I can but say that some of you people really do need to be dealt with harshly, (and you make me sick) for advocating this kind of vile deceit. What brings down the office is when they do things like locking up children indefinitely without charge or trial, in circumstances proven to produce adverse mental health outcomes. Consequently, this makes them child abusers in my mind, and worthy candidates for verbal abuse, amongst other things.

As for you *Pork Belly* (and re:churlish I am in part a peasant at heart) I would but say, keep trying mate.

For me, (and to stand on my soap box for a moment) I have scored so many points and received so much kudos, that I felt obliged to burst my own bubble, by revealing some rather personal details of both a medical and criminal nature, for I am but a flawed and imperfect person and do not wish to be thought of otherwise.

..

As for *Foxy Loxy* she has always been good for keeping my ego in check, and I value and respect that.

..

As for *Lexie,* did you like the Hamas Palestina - Yahoodee prisoner exchange? Superficially, and in the absence of a better vantage point, it appeared to me to be most brilliant.

..

Re this thread again, and opinions aside, can anyone actually elaborate on what some of the legal grounds are for dismissing a politician? Obviously falling out of favor with the head of ones party is obviously one, but what else?

RObert I address my remarks to you.
Some time ago, I highlighted a poster was, in my view, one from our past.
You thought I was wrong.
But later became a believer.
That poster, with help from another, intruded in to my private life.
You will note a slur aimed at Lexi, she for her own reasons is still the same person she always was.
My warrior, I remain one,fight face to face, had to stop.
OLO is of far more worth than anyones ego.
But I must not either, let insults go unanswered.
In the past posters, new ones, tasked with insulting me or others turn up.
And increasingly old posters return with new names but old habits.
I have, in the last month,see EXTRAORDINARY! changes in posts from one poster who has had other names.
Mental illness is involved, sad,true honest I think that, but I also think some threads must die than become a slander wall for some to scribble on.
My regards see you in another thread.
PS this posters post history shows my evidence .

Belly, whilst there were a lot of similarities with that poster I'm not convinced it was the same person (there was an easily tracable identity). As CJ once suggested possibly something in the water.

I don't do well at spotting identity swaps, generally takes a while (or someone pointing it out) and do try and avoid running battles (although I've had a few).

We may just have to agree to disagree on the topic of this thread.
See you later.

R0bert

Belly,

This whole debacle that culminated in the resignation of the Commonwealth Ombudsman has been an 'own goal' of federal 'Team' Labor's own making.

To suggest that it was in any way wrong of the Ombudsman to have 'used' the Senate by way of supplying one minor party Senator with a list of questions that could in due course prove revelatory if put to the Ombudsman in a Budget Estimates Committee hearing, is to endorse the spin so endemic to the miserably brief and superficial MSM reporting of this whole issue. Granted it may have appeared UNCONVENTIONAL, on the face of it, for the Ombudsman to have solicited the help of Senator Hanson-Young in ventilating his concerns as to the adequacy of resources with which to do the job for which he was appointed by this very government only 14 months ago.

What the Ombudsman was demonstrating by this seemingly unconventional tactic was ability at recognising and revealing administrative obfuscation and obstructiveness by executive government to his discharging of the very functions placed upon him by the Ombudsman Act. In short, demonstrating competence at, and independence of government in, the doing of his job. The spin, reported to have been parroted widely across the major parties, was that this was in some way 'wrong'.

What seems to have gone uncommented upon in the MSM is that Senator Hanson-Young was, at the time of the Ombudsman's submission to the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network in September 2011, the Deputy-Chair of that Committee of the Parliament. It seems only natural and proper that, in relation to ongoing matters affecting the Ombudsman's oversight of the application of the 'immigration detention values' promulgated by the Labor government in July 2008, the Ombudsman should have sought a meeting with any non-government member of that Committee, and all the more so its Deputy-Chair given she met this criterion and that the inquiry was ongoing. See: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/immigration_detention_ctte/immigration_detention/interim_report/index.htm

Did the spinmeisters count on nobody even reading the tabled emails? See here for a link thereto: http://www.smh.com.au/national/ombudsmans-independence-questioned-after-greens-link-20111012-1ll48.html

TBC

Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 25 October 2011 11:18:58 AM

" ... Did the spinmeisters count on nobody even reading the tabled emails? See here for a link thereto: http://www.smh.com.au/national/ombudsmans-independence-questioned-after-greens-link-20111012-1ll48.html ... "

*Forrest* thanks for some great linkies and a very enjoyable read. I didn't read all of the emails, but enough to feel sated and intellectually satisfied. I did note there was some duplication amongst it all, but otherwise again, great work.

It seems to me to be a great loss that we no longer have *OmbudsPerson Allen*

..

A couple of associated comments. I recall reading a High Court case some time ago regarding a junkie and an appeal in relation to the *Rights of the Child Convention*

Even though the High Court has original jurisdiction in such matters, from memory I believe that the crux of the decision essentially stated that to be a signatory of such conventions has no real legal force unless it is enacted in local Australian law.

Thus, the Human Rights Commission jurisdiction here as of my last reading does not extend to social security or to immigration matters.

This is supported by the ALP's desire to remove the provision relating to Human Rights from the Immigration Act and though I note there appears to be an aspect of political opportunism on *Mr Abbott's* part, and whilst I am generally no fan of the Liberal party, I am strongly supportive of their stand.

You see, in my view, the Australian guvment should be forced to resign from the Asylum Seekers Convention, from the Rights of the Child Convention and also from the Torture Convention and stand before the world as the despicable individuals that they, in my view, really are. But here again, there appears to be no mechanism for this to be done, or alternatively if it is a matter that needs to be brought against them by another State, is indicative of the fact that most if not all of the other States, in various shades, are pretty much as bad as one another.

Continued

In expressing no confidence in the Ombudsman, and thereby pressuring his resignation, the Labor government has simply been seen to have 'shot a messenger'.

By trying to spin it that the Ombudsman was 'secretly' and partisanly 'colluding' with a Greens Senator, those within the government that have expressed this lack of confidence may have not only sailed very close to the wind with respect to contempt for the ongoing proceedings of a committee of the Parliament, but put the spotlight right on the very failing of the Labor government that re-ignited the maritime asylum-seeker issue: the promulgation of its 'immigration detention values'.

Its all in the emails, and they were never secret. Even the suggested questions were transmitted as an attachment to an email. There had but to be a request made for them to be tabled, and tabled they were. The Ombudsman, as an experienced advocate, would always have known such a request could have been made, and if he was truly attempting to collude secretly would surely never have transmitted the suggested questions in that way.

What the emails establish is that in mid-2008, the maritime-entry immigration detention pipeline was essentially empty. This is embarrassing to the government because it can be claimed to be evidence that the 'Pacific solution' had worked. There were, essentially, no more boats coming. The budget for the resourcing of the Ombudsman's office was based upon essentially no maritime asylum-seekers being in detention, and thus not contributing significantly to his workload and the costs of discharging his role as Immigration Ombudsman.

At around about the same time that this zero-budget baseline for maritime asylum-seeker detainees was being established for the Immigration Ombudsman's role, it appears the Labor government thought it could afford to indulge an element within its ranks in some triumphalist political corpse-kicking. It promulgated the afore-mentioned 'Immigration Detention Values'.

With that, the Australian government had been seen by the people-smugglers to have blinked.

It might just as well have printed brochures encouraging secondary-movement asylum-seeking.

So stupid.

Forrest thanks for your research and analysis. I'd not dug that far but what you've posted confirms what I thought was going on.

R0bert

It is worth noting the dates of the tabled emails in relation to their contents in respect to what has been spun as being partisan collusion between Senator Hanson-Young and the Ombudsman to the extent of the destruction of the government's confidence in his being able to discharge his responsibilities.

Before going into more detail in regard to the emails, it is worth noting some subtle nuances with respect to the report dates set for the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Immigration Detention Network that was set up on 16 June 2011. This web page, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/immigration_detention_ctte/immigration_detention/info.htm , states that:

"It is anticipated that the Committee will report in March 2012."

That Committee's interim report to the Parliament dated 7 October 2011 posted on this web page, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/immigration_detention_ctte/immigration_detention/interim_report/index.htm , states, at the conclusion of the second paragraph of its covering letter (effectively the totality of the report), :

"The committee requests its reporting date be extended to 30 March 2012."

Given that the anticipated report date was FROM THE OUTSET described as being some unspecified date in March 2012, and that no more specific reference to any March date earlier than the 30th is anywhere in evidence, am I alone in thinking that the request for EXTENSION creates an impression that as of not later than 6 October 2011 (when the Committee met) the inquiry was no longer ONGOING?

Should it be that no specific date in March 2012 earlier than the 30th thereof in the interim between 16 June and 6 October 2011 had been set by the Parliament for the Committee's reporting, then the request for an EXTENSION of reporting date was both unnecessary (the 30th being within the month of March originally specified) and misleading to the extent that it created any impression that the Committee's inquiry was no longer ongoing.

And if the Ombudsman, having given testimony before an ongoing inquiry of a Committee of the Parliament, was carpeted by the PM, would that not have amounted to the attempted intimidation of a witness?

Some brilliant research and analysis Forrest Gump.

A tawdry affair to say the least.

*Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 10:40:33 AM*

" ... And if the Ombudsman, having given testimony before an ongoing inquiry of a Committee of the Parliament, was carpeted by the PM, would that not have amounted to the attempted intimidation of a witness? ... "

Hmmm .. I am recalling *Falkner's* prolonged hostile glare at the camera broadcast by the compliant ABC and considering its potential effect.

..

I would like to add a sprinkling of something extra that is related post having spoken to an individual that claimed to be a contract fly in fly out nurse at ChristMass island.

She did express a number of views about what she claimed to be those people who have entered australia through the back door, and her rhetoric did seem to me to largely conform to the sorts of things the guvment say on this matter.

She did though interestingly state that a full time nursing clinic is not in operation and that a lot of the time, and especially on week ends, interpreters or translated materials are simply not available, making her work as a nurse to range from the difficult too the impossible.

..

I am strongly opposed to unbridled capitalism and see it at times as being both dangerous and destructive.

I prefer hybridised systems with a healthy dollop of socialism where everyone has a right to a living wage/financial security solution.

Pelican,

I don't know that my research is all that brilliant.

I know that the anticipated March 2012 report date given on the web page headed 'Information about the Inquiry', http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/immigration_detention_ctte/immigration_detention/info.htm ,was displayed in bold type and attracts attention right up front. Nevertheless I am uneasy that the fact that the Committee's interim report dated 7 October 2011 asks for an EXTENSION of report date to 30 March 2012 indicates that somewhere some earlier specific date in March 2012 has been specified as the final report date. Can you see anything in this respect? http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/immigration_detention_ctte/immigration_detention/index.htm

I'm puzzled as to why the PM and the Special Minister of State felt that the Ombudsman had overstepped the mark in speaking to, and drafting questions for, the Green's spokesperson on Immigration, Senator Hanson-Young, which the Ombudsman did in May, when the government was happy to support in the Parliament the setting up of a Joint Select Committee on 16 June 2011 to inquire into, inter alia, the very issues of resourcing in relation to the ventilation of which the Ombudsman was felt to have lost the confidence of the government, three months BEFORE the emails that allegedly revealed the claimed partisan collusion were asked to be tabled?

I'm also puzzled as to why the interim report, if indeed there has been some earlier date in March 2012 already specified as the Committee's final report date, needs to request such an impliedly small extension in time so far in advance of that date? Surely, if there is somewhere buried some entirely different final report date much closer to the present, an interim report requesting such a, by inference, relatively larger extension in report time would surely contain more than two paragraphs?

Here's a twitpic of the PDF: http://twitpic.com/75wtb6

I should correct a statement in my previous post that could imply that the government proposed the currently ongoing Parliamentary inquiry into Australia's Immigration Detention Network that was set up on 16 June 2011. Hansard records Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Scott Morrison, moving that the inquiry be set up.
See: http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-05-30.24.2

Indeed, the Labor government was less than fully happy to institute this inquiry, as the remarks of Ed Husic MP to be found around half-way down the web page in the record of that debate reveal.

Ed Husic's remarks are corroborative of a claim that the government was less than fully sincere in claiming it lost confidence in the Ombudsman because he provided Senator Hanson-Young with some 'Dorothy Dix' questions to put to him at an estimates hearing. In the second paragraph of his speech to the motion Husic said:

"... If [Scott Morrison was] genuinely concerned
with the events in part (a) of his motion, we would
have heard about this proposed inquiry more than a
month ago. The reason we did not hear about it is
because the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
responded quickly and effectively to the events on
Christmas Island and at Villawood by announcing an
arms-length independent inquiry led by experienced
public servants Helen Williams and Dr Allan Hawke. ..."

Ed Husic goes on in the sixth paragraph to say:

"As I have mentioned, we have already announced
independent reviews into the incidents at Christmas
Island and Villawood detention centre, and the Ombudsman
consistently investigates the detention system. ..."

Here we have the government funding an inquiry by two public servants who, no matter how competent or reputable they may be, are relatively junior to the Ombudsman, a Statutorily Appointed officer of seniority such that he is only dismisable from office by a vote from each House of the Parliament, at a time when that government says it cannot increase the Ombudsman's budget! That smacks of a loss of government confidence in the Ombudsman over a month before he had even sent the first email to Senator Hanson-Young.

Belly,

I was so pleased to see your post of the wee small hours of yesterday morning to another of your topics on this forum ('Nanny state?': http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4804#127344 ) that made reference to Laurie Oakes' delivery of the ABC's 2011 Andrew Olle Media Lecture to which you were listening. Here is a transcript of that lecture, if you are interested in a print version:

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/10/21/3345509.htm

In it Laurie at one point says:

"If we genuinely believe that serving a public good,
oiling the wheels of democracy, is part of the journalism
mission statement, then the onus is on us to try to do
something. To ask ourselves if there is a way to slow down
the news cyclone when issues sufficiently important to the
political debate are involved?"

I'm not a journalist in the sense that Laurie means, nor indeed in any sense at all, but I think I might be usefully slow, because slowing down the news cyclone is what I am trying to do in continuing to laboriously post to this topic, 'Should the Green Senator resign?'. Laurie Oakes spoke earlier in the lecture of the political reporting instincts of Warren Denning, and, quoting from Denning's book 'Inside Parliament', said:

"The man assigned to this work (they WERE all men back then)
has to be alive to every pulse-beat in the Parliamentary body,
able to detect the slightest trace of abnormality, able to
sense that things are going wrong, that something is out of tune,
that somebody is 'up to something'..."

`

I sense that something is out of tune here, that somebody is 'up to something', in the way this whole saga of the forcing of the Ombudsman's resignation has been brought about. I just wish I could write the right questions to ask myself on this forum, or that someone could write them for me.

Wouldn't it be good if Laurie was to read this thread. I wouldn't want to usurp his role.

Belly,

It looks like one of Laurie Oakes' predictions as to the future of journalism made in his concluding remarks in the recent 2011 Andrew Olle Media Lecture, the one that "spin will become even more pervasive and powerful, believe it or not", is being borne out in relation to the forced resignation of the Ombudsman, Allan Asher. Here is an example which I got from this link tweeted by Vexnews: bit.ly/s98sqb which delivers one to http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ombudsman-gone-but-not-out-as-tweets-run-hot/story-fn59niix-1226178869847

Both the news item and the subtitle of its accompanying picture of Allan Asher commence with the word 'Disgraced'. Spin from the very outset! Allan Asher is anything but disgraced.

Let's look at what's not been reported, but should have been, as to how what has been represented as being secret collusion between the Ombudsman and Senator Hanson-Young (SH-Y) actually came to light. Allan Asher gave unforced INCIDENTAL testimony on Friday 23 September 2011 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee to the effect that he had had conversations with SH-Y. Here's the Hansard: http://twitpic.com/76rbkf

Senator Crossin, who was present, subsequently placed this question-upon-notice of the Ombudsman: http://twitpic.com/76dgpk . It was that question that elicited the emails, the contents of some of which proved so embarrassing to the government under the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee Inquiry into Australia's Immigration Detention Network, one co-incidentally proposed on 30 May 2011 only days after SH-Y was contacted by the Ombudsman.

The PM should have known better than to base a claim to the government's having lost confidence in the Ombudsman upon the response to that question-upon-notice, and subsequently conveyed such a view to the Ombudsman, forcing his resignation.

`

It was privileged testimony.

`

Look at what the Chair of the Senate LCAR Committee said in relation to such testimony at that very hearing: http://twitpic.com/76tf60

I'm not about to suggest that Australian executive government 'life' has necessarily imitated US presidential 'art', but an incident from the television series 'West Wing' that has come to mind can illuminate an aspect of Allan Asher's departure from the statutory office of Commonwealth Ombudsman that is of significant public importance.

In the TV series, the staffer to President Bartlett, Toby Ziegler, is depicted as having leaked in respect to a particular White House policy, with damaging political consequences to the president he served. Eventually, it became clear that he was going to be found out as the leaker. He confessed to having leaked, and offered his resignation to President Bartlett in person.

That scene saw President Bartlett saying:

"Toby, I can't accept your resignation.
You're fired!"

Subsequently Toby Ziegler was convicted of an offence in relation to the breach of secrecy involved, and in one of the concluding episodes of the series we saw the outgoing President Bartlett wrestling with the moral dilemma as to whether he could sign a presidential pardon for his erstwhile good friend and colleague as one of his last acts in office.

Now I don't suggest for a moment that the circumstances surrounding Allan Asher's real-life resignation were in any way a parallel to those surrounding the resignation offered by the fictional Toby Ziegler in 'West Wing'. What I do suggest is that Prime Minister Gillard was obligated not to accept an effectively forced resignation from Asher, with all of the implications as to impropriety that go with such a forced resignation, when the removal from office for reasons of improper conduct of that statutory officer, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, is prescribed by law as being only by a vote of each House of the Parliament.

`

Prime Minister Gillard has effectively usurped a prerogative of the Parliament.

`

The PM also stands, prima facie, able to be seen to have committed a contempt of the Senate, inasmuch as at her instigation Allan Asher has lost his job in consequence of what was privileged testimony given to a Senate Committee.

This is a refreshing change from the mindless spin that seemed to constitute the bulk of the early reporting of the relative non-issue that was seemingly used to force the Ombudsman from office: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/the-ombudsman-should-not-have-had-to-resign/2340937.aspx?storypage=0

If the Senate has been 'used' in the sense that Belly mentioned in opening this topic of 'Should the Green Senator resign?', it is by any who may have conspired to 'set up' the Ombudsman. Perhaps not even a conspiracy, more of a 'Beckett' scenario - "Will no one rid me of this troublesome Ombudsman" - with some self-ingratiating 'noble' seizing upon the significance of the Ombudsman's freely given incidental 23 September 2011 testimony to the Senate's LCAR Committee that revealed conversations with SH-Y had occurred as a 'proof' of 'secret briefings' and partiality in the discharge of his responsibilities.

This paragraph of the Canberra Times editorial is most disturbing in this context:

"Further compromise would have occurred if
ministers' offices had provided details of
communications between Asher and MPs to selected
journalists before the Senate committee had
formally considered accepting the question on
notice and releasing the ombudsman's response.
It seems likely that this happened. Our inquiries
suggest that Nick Butterly of The West Australian
was aware of the detail of the question on notice
five days before the committee met. Matthew Franklin
of The Australian also seemed to have the jump on
other journalists as his story appeared immediately
after the committee met."

As can be seen from even this much more balanced editorial analysis, there is still little public recognition that the communication between Asher and SH-Y was not something that had to be 'discovered' by skillful questioning, but was freely and incidentally openly revealed by Asher himself!

What was perhaps a maliciously contrived beat-up has engendered a punishment contrary to law. The privilege of the Senate has been first invaded, and subsequently the prerogative of the Parliament as to punishment (if even deserved) usurped!

Any zeal in our Houses?

Belly,

It looks like Laurie Oakes' fourth prediction as to the future of journalism made in the Andrew Olle Media Lecture, that "Bloggers will start to usurp the role of determining what is news", might be happening as a case in point on this very forum. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12820#221489

Things have been happening in the twitterverse (wherein I have a presence under the same userID as I do here, minus the space between the names) since the Ombudsman was forced to resign. There is a tweetsquall, if not yet a tweetstorm, approaching Canberra's Parliament House that may be heralding an 'Australian Spring'. It calls for the reinstatement of Allan Asher, the Ombudsman forced to resign over what look like having been selectively leaked 'revelations' of his having scripted questions for SH-Y to put to him in a Senate Estimates hearing. This is the relevant Hansard for that hearing: http://t.co/Ih75Bz2D

The problem is that the source for these seemingly selectively leaked 'revelations' as to Asher's allegedly improper contact with SH-Y ultimately derived from privileged testimony of Asher himself on 23 September to another Senate Committee, that of the LCAR Committee inquiry into Australia's agreement with Malaysia in relation to asylum seekers. This is the Hansard of that testimony: http://twitpic.com/79ri7q

That testimony was the basis for the question-upon-notice that elicited the emails the content of some of which proved embarrassing to the government, and upon the basis of the revelation of which Allan Asher has been disadvantaged, inasmuch as his resignation was forced as is now publicly known. He should have enjoyed immunity for that testimony, as the warning given at the opening of the hearing by the Chair, Senator Humphries, makes clear. Here is the Hansard of that warning: http://twitpic.com/76tf60

I wonder whether Laurie Oakes noticed yesterday's move to have the Chair of the LCAR Committee removed from the Opposition and given to the Greens as an "abnormality [in the] pulse-beat [of] the Parliamentary body"? See: http://abetz.com.au/speeches/senate-chamber-election-of-committee-chair and this: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/november-coup-plotted-on-julia-gillard-pressure-on-kevin-rudd-to-push-for-top-job/story-e6freuzi-1226184026989?t=1320266389

Eight days to 11/11/11.

Belly,

One of your four questions is "What do we expect from our elected people[?]". I am assuming you mean the whole political spectrum of elected people when you ask that. For once I feel able to answer such a question, so far as it relates to the issue of the forced resignation of the Ombudsman (and you'll note I don't use the word 'former') with one word.

That word is, 'better'.

Enough said, at least for the moment, in that respect, for, with the absence of PM Gillard at the G20 conference overseas, Acting PM Swan has been provided with a window of opportunity to pour oil on the troubled waters surrounding the maritime-arrival asylum seeker issue, and show some leadership, even if only of an interim nature.

`

Acting PM Swan could advise the Governor-General to request Allan Asher withdraw his (forced) resignation.

`

Much is presently being made in the MSM of speculation as to a change of leadership within the Labor government. This speculation is perhaps being given legs by the (belated) recognition of the wrongful nature of the Ombudsman's forced resignation having involved an invasion of Senate privilege, and a subsequent usurpation of Parliamentary prerogative, at least notionally on the part of the PM. It is the tacit recognition around the Parliament of what could well arise from THAT matter, I suggest, that is most fuelling leadership-change speculation. The Acting PM could take much of the heat out of that speculation by effectively redressing the wrong done to the Ombudsman and the wound inflicted upon the Australian body politic by what amounted to the wrongful dismissal of a Statutory Officer.

And there you go, Belly, I've used THAT word, haven't I?

'Dismissal'

Oh dear! But, come to think of it, the Governor-General IS charged with the maintenance of the Constitution, and that includes Sections 49 and 50 thereof, not to mention that foundation of our polity that is the supremacy of Parliament.

"49. The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate ......"

Seven days to 11/11/11.

For the fuller information of OLO viewers and users who may be visiting this On Line Opinion Forum General Discussion thread, 'Should the Green Senator [Hanson-Young] resign?', I post a link to a youtube short video statement by Allan Asher, the Commonwealth Ombudsman recently forced to resign over allegations of having partisanly scripted questions for SH-Y to ask him at a Senate Estimates hearing.

http://twitter.com/#!/allanasher/status/132042251525308416

The link delivers viewers to a blank blue background Twitter page. It may take more than just a few seconds for the youtube pane to come up, so be a little patient. The 'yesterday' he refers to in his opening remarks is, I calculate from the Twitter timestamping, Wednesday 2 November 2011.

You do not have to have a Twitter account to view the video.

As soon as I have found Special Minister of State Gray's statement to the Parliament to which the Ombudsman is responding in the video, I shall post a link in this thread to the Hansard thereof, or a twitpic of its PDF/hard copy.

`

Of particular note in the video is Allan Asher's call for the proposed Parliamentary Committee of oversight to which the Ombudsman can have resort over issues such as funding to hold, as one of its first tasks, an inquiry into the leaking, in breach of Senate privilege, of his confidential response to questions-upon-notice arising out of testimony given by him on 23 September 2011 before the Senate LCAR Committee inquiry into Australia's agreement with Malaysia in relation to asylum seekers.

Seven days to 11/11/11.*

`

*In ancient Hebrew usage, I am given to understand that different numbers had specific symbolic connotations assigned to them. Seven, for example, had a symbolic connotation of 'perfection'. Eleven, I understand, bore that of 'disorder'. Twelve, that of 'perfect government' (a symbolism reflected in British heraldry in the portcullis in the Coat of Arms of the House of Commons), and so on and so forth. FWIW. Not an expert. Just using up my 350 words for the post.

For those following this thread, now is an appropriate time to illuminate a problematic aspect of the interface of the twitterverse, the world of OnLineOpinion (OLO, for new viewers of what is fast becoming Australia's principal journal of record), and the real world of Australian government and governance.

This tweet by twitter userID 'LaLegale' (Legal Practitioner) is made by someone who clearly, as I do, wishes to maintain their online anonymity, and that probably for good reason: http://twitter.com/#!/LaLegale/status/132317386719236097

Here is my response, as twitter userID 'ForrestGumpp' ([people call me] Forrest Gumpp) on Twitter, to the question posed in her tweet as to the next step in getting Allan Asher reinstated: http://twitter.com/#!/ForrestGumpp/status/132338439969443840

Clearly, quite apart from the limitations to discussion imposed by the 140 characters of a tweet, there comes to be increasing difficulty in maintaining one's anonymity if one posts, incognito or not, on other sites, as, for example in emailing a journalist or a politician in respect of something upon which one has posted on OLO, or posting a comment to an online newspaper. Literary style alone can be a dead giveaway in that respect.

What is needed is a person of real credibility and no need of anonymity to carry the essential content as to the wrongfulness surrounding the forcing of Allan Asher's resignation from such online presentations as Asher's youtube video, and my posts here on OLO to, ideally, the Acting PM and, perhaps, the Governor-General.

The ideal go-between could well be Sir David Smith KCVO, AO. Sir David is a registered OLO user, occasionally posting under the userID 'DIS'. I'll grant that for an Acting PM a visit from Sir David at this time of year might be thought akin to one of the Grim Reaper himself, but the last thing anyone desirous of having this wound to Australia's body politic redressed is for those capable of fixing it to be able to say "I was unaware of this discussion" and let the window of opportunity close.

Could someone in Canberra approach Sir David on this?

10 days to 11/11/11

Oh gosh, a TYPO in my previous post!

Its not 10 days to 11/11/11. Its only SIX days. (Not counting today, which is half gone already.)

And the omission of the word 'needs' between 'redressed' and 'is' in the second-last paragraph.

It would be a real shame if people thought there was more time than there really was to avert something perhaps, as maybe recently darkly hinted at by the Green Senator Brown, apocalyptic.

`

11/11/11 is, of course, as not only Sir David Smith would be aware, the 36th anniversary of the 'big D', the Dismissal. Sir David has in past years had a fairly heavy speaking engagement schedule at around this date, so any approach to him to take advantage of this window of opportunity for a bloodless repair of a serious wrong done our national polity, should he be able/willing to assist, had probably better be made earlier rather than later.

I don't know what the prospects of success might be of the Acting PM facilitating a reinstatement, but I can hardly see the best Treasurer of the G20 group being carpeted by his Leader upon her return for removing this little embarrassment for her while she was away, away at a G20 conference, no less. Wouldn't look good internationally, I'm sure, for him to be 'canned' like that. So why wouldn't Mr Swan give it a go, and call upon the Governor-General to ask Allan Asher to reconsider his resignation?

`

SIX days to 11/11/11

Belly,

I saw this tweet transit my Twitter timeline, and couldn't resist posting a link to it for you, as you have made past mention of the fact that you don't have a Twitter account. It mentions your mate Bill. I know you like a little humour with your morning coffee, for you have told me so, as I was reminded only last night while I was poking about in my user history, looking for lots of things not to do.

http://twitter.com/#!/TommyTudehope/status/132322614143238144

Thanks for letting me blog on your topic (on topic of course). I'm finding it difficult to get to the answering of the titular question: there has been just so much stuff lying around in Hansard that exonerates the Ombudsman that I reckon should have been picked up on by the media, but wasn't. Laurie Oakes must be feeling quite vindicated, if that is the word, to see just about everything in his predictions made in the Andrew Olle Media Lecture illustrated in real life within days of it being delivered. If he's watching, that is. I have tried to give him a 'heads up' in respect to this matter, to which my tweet history bears witness, should he have even needed one.

So far, I haven't been able to see that SH-Y has done anything much, except be a Senator. There was nothing covert about the Ombudsman's approaching her as to his funding concerns, as can now be seen from the Hansard of his 23 September testimony. SH-Y's questions before the Estimates Committee seemed related only to what the Ombudsman had put before her, so so far I can't see that she has done anything wrong.

I'm curious as to how you formed your view so early on. Was it from the early media coverage alone, or from internal Party discussions or views to which you had access? I'm not asking you to breach any confidences, but it would be interesting to know.

`

Five days to 11/11/11

I can hardly imagine there would be many viewers of this thread these days, despite the attempt at throwing a spanner into the works of, as Laurie Oakes describes it, the news cyclone. Just in case there are, however, I'll try to provide a little summary and commentary on the progress of the tweetsquall related to this matter of public interest, the improper forcing of the Ombudsman's resignation.

Twitter has been for email what eBay has been for postal services. A Web1 tool given a new function by a Web2 development, the pair now 'en echelon', as it were, with 'sort of blogging' (monologues on otherwise dead forum threads), like what we occasionally have here on OLO.

The thing is, the email notification feature of Twitter allows one to keep one's finger upon the pulse-beat of an issue, and never miss a tweet of importance in the stream of information ever flowing past in the tweetstream that is one's Twitter timeline. Here are links to two tweets of importance to the non-Twitter-enabled viewership (the illtwitterate?):

http://twitter.com/ForrestGumpp/status/132917295688318976?iid=am-45140289413205734044653398&nid=6+status_timestamp&uid=29143498 It was re-tweeted by Allan Asher to 587 followers, the email tells me. It makes reference to the "real privilege issue", which sort of implies that somewhere there must be an 'unreal' privilege issue. Godwin's Law prevents me from amplifying here on OLO as to what I suspect that might be, but I sense it to be of the nature of a smokescreen, or maybe a red herring.

http://thttp://twitter.com/allanasher/status/133121041965924352?iid=am-156194753213205735045273725&nid=4+status_timestamp&uid=29143498 Senator Humphries was Chair of the Senate LCAR Committee at the time the privilege issue related to Allan Asher arose.

Bitte
En claire, en echelon, the info flows
To us, to all who really need to know
Twitter

And,for Belly, to go with the morning coffee, brevity being the soul of wit, a re-tweet of mine:

http://twitter.com/#!/trickyidnego/status/130103065545162753 Zagat was recently sold for US$151 million.

Interfacing the twitterverse.

`

Four days to 11/11/11

Forrest sorry I've not been finding much to add but have been keenly interested in what you have been posting.

R0bert

For some reason the second link in my previous post did not copy correctly. Here is the correct link, having been checked in 'post preview' first, like what I should have done in the first case:

http://twitter.com/allanasher/status/133121041965924352?iid=am-156194753213205735045273725&nid=4+status_timestamp&uid=29143498

For those who can't stand life in the clickstream mystified by all this, all the link was was to a tweet by Allan Asher in which he advised "I plan to speak with Senator Humphries as soon as I can make an appointment."

That promises to be at least one bridge between the world of pseudonymous opinionation/political commentary and the real world of governance. Let's hope there could be more such bridges in regard to this issue of public importance.

Come to think of it, Sir David Smith has contributed articles to OLO. I wonder whether it would be OK for GrahamY to send Sir David an email letting him know his (Sir David's) name has been being taken in vain on this thread? GrahamY should be in a good mood this morning because the article 'Scientific heresy' http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12844 that he wishes he had written himself has scored the trifecta, topping 'Today's most popular','This week's most popular', and 'This week's most discussed' displays. For the record: http://twitpic.com/7bkum5

It seems only fair that OLO should advise an article author of the posting of comments on the Forum relevant to an article that that author may have already written, or be about to publish, what with a well known anniversary coming up and all that. How about it, GrahamY?

Speaking of anniversaries, 11 November is the 71st anniversary of the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm night raid on the Italian naval base at Taranto in WW2. The Italian fleet was left in some disorder after it. Some think that raid convinced the Imperial Japanese Navy, looking on, of the success prospects of an air attack on Pearl Harbour.

`

Four days to 11/11/11

Yesterday, when all these troubles seemed so far away, dependent I was on hearsay, that heads had rolled along the way.

http://twitter.com/#!/LaLegale/status/133302060505497601

But that was only yesterday.

Late yesterday, asked Google what it had to say, on Metcalfe taking leave this way. Here's what it told me, yesterday:

http://bit.ly/rTj4jh

And just to back up this, my claim, I put its answer in this frame:

http://twitpic.com/7bpty8

I know to have to click these links, a thing that really, really stinks
Along with all those twittered links, when done, it starts to make one think.

Now I believe in yesterday.

`

The links engendered: not hearsay.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-05/metcalfe-takes-extended-leave/3636996
http://www.theage.com.au/national/change-of-climate-as-bowles-replaces-metcalfe-20111104-1n05g.html

`

Three days to 11/11/11

My apologies to Sir Paul McCartney. I guess I was just desperate to get a knight on this case. My train of thought was: Senate. Allan. Hearings. Alan Joyce. (US) Senator McCarthy. McCartney, Paul. Hearing. Music in my head.

That was yesterday. Today I used a little poetic license in using the expression 'heads had rolled', for only one head (that of the erstwhile permanent one of DIAC*, Andrew Metcalfe) was seemingly involved, and it hadn't rolled, but had gone, or shortly was to be going, to some other place, on leave, still attached to its body.

Presumably that will mean Andrew Metcalfe will be unavailable to further testify before the current Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network, one due to report by 30 March 2012. DIAC, as had the Ombudsman, made a submission to that inquiry, and the Parliament may yet have required to question both Andrew Metcalfe and Allan Asher in their respective official capacities as to those submissions. As things stand, that looks like it won't happen now.

Looks like dirty pool to me.

Allan Asher's head did roll, however, inasmuch as HIS high regard for the standing in the public eye of the Statutory Office of Ombudsman was used against him to force a resignation, by means of a press beat-up of misplaced outrage that had arisen from two separate invasions of Senate privilege: the leaking of the Ombudsman's responses to the LCAR Committee's question-upon-notice before that Committee had authorized its tabling in the first place; and then the carpeting of the Ombudsman on the basis of those leaked, then subsequently tabled, responses when he was supposed to enjoy immunity from reprisal for such privileged testimony.

Only the reinstatement of Allan Asher can undo the damage to the Australian body politic that these breaches of privilege have caused.

How about it, PM?

`

*Homonymic with the acronymian DIAC is the tribal name Diak, the famed headhunters and shrinkers-of-heads of the island of Borneo. Spooky in the circumstances, eh? Departmental name-change soon, I wonder?

Belly,

Here's a bit more media analysis about your mate Bill, just in case you haven't seen it already, as I've just seen your userID come up on the 'users currently online' display.

http://bit.ly/ul4t1a

Interesting how the news item uses the 'Rocky' analogy in relation to PM Gillard. "Cut me Bill!". Also interesting, in relation to this 'sort of blog' about the forced resignation of the Ombudsman that you are good enough to let me run here, is Rob Burgess' relaying of the speculation that the 'kingmakers' may have been preparing a knife more for stabbing than cutting.

Stabbing Julia, that is.

It isn't hard to understand the desperation that must be being felt in Federal Labor circles, with respect to electoral survival, for every extra day Julia Gillard stays as Leader. Especially when members of the public are saying things like this:

http://twitter.com/#!/Scruffbucket/status/133770188616245248

I wonder, could the leaking of the Ombudsman's responses to the LCAR Committee's question-upon-notice, and his subsequent being told in breach of privilege that he had lost the confidence of the government (when it was to the PARLIAMENT that he was answerable) have been a 'kingmaker' style plan intended to provide a reason for deposing JG as Leader that necessitated little or no internecine bloodletting?

Was the damage done to the office of Ombudsman, and to Allan Asher, simply 'collateral damage' unavoidable as part of a now seemingly failed plan to dump Julia Gillard? In which case, or for that matter in any case, now that 'the polls' look like they may be 'turning around' (being turned around?) for Julia, how about doing the right thing by Allan Asher and the Australian public and facilitate his reinstatement?

As by now SH-Y, and many others, may be able to see, its all about being able to ask the right questions.

I could never understand how KRudd could have been knifed without a word getting out in advance, nor one voice in dissent. Now I think I can.

Two days to 11/11/11

Belly,

You may have noticed that I have posted several times to the OLO article published on 2 November, 'Is political leadership a lost art?'. Just in case you, and others who may be following this discussion, haven't noticed, here is the link to those comments: http://bit.ly/rJ6w2d

So far there have been only three comments to that article, all by me. I have, as viewers will see, been trying to give the authors at least some encouragement, because they have given an important 'heads up' for potentially millions of Australians in relation to the threat posed to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by the currently-being-negotiated Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. Another opportunity for PM Gillard to show some leadership, and especially so in the light of President Obama's impending visit to Australia.

Taking a stand in support of the PBS would juxtapose nicely with any slight loss of face that might be occasioned by a reinstatement of Allan Asher to his Statutory Office of Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Now for another anniversary and a little spookiness, perhaps. Today is the 67th anniversary of the explosion, in Seeadler Harbour, Manus Island, of the USS Mount Hood (AE11), an ammunition resupply ship, on 10 November 1944 in WW2. Hundreds of US servicemen lost their lives that day. The spookiness is that it was the second ship to have blown up in WW2 that bore the name 'Hood'. The other was, famously, HMS Hood, which blew up in an engagement with the German battleship 'Bismarck' in May 1941. Manus Island is in the Bismarck archipelago. HMS Hood was named in honour of Britain's first admiral Samuel Hood. USS Mount Hood was named after a volcanic peak in Oregon that was also named in honour of Britain's first admiral Samuel Hood.

Is that a hoodoo, or does it have some deep symbolic meaning, I wonder?

Oh, and Sir David Hay, Australia's first military Ombudsman (1973) and last Administrator of New Guinea as an Australian colony, was serving in New Guinea on that day in 1944, I think his birthday.

`

One day to 11/11/11

Today, 11/11/11, is for the nation the 93rd celebration of Remembrance Day since that day in 1918 when, at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, the armistice that initiated the termination of WW1 came into effect. Prior to WW2, which necessitated the remembrance of the fallen in other conflicts, the day was known as Armistice Day. Lest we forget.

Today is also, as has already been alluded to in this 'sort of blog', the 36th anniversary of what has come to be known in Australia as the Dismissal, the determination of the commission of PM Whitlam and the shortly thereafter to be proclaimed prorogation of Parliament and dissolution of the House of Representatives by the Governor-General in 1975, in exercise of the provisions of Section 5 of the Constitution.

`

Given that in my posts to this topic I have laid stress upon the importance of asking the right questions in respect to the recent improperly-forced resignation of the Ombudsman, it seems appropriate to present two of ten as-yet-unanswered questions addressed to the Australian media by Sir David Smith on 7 November 2004 in the Senate chamber of Old Parliament House. The first question was:

"Why did [Whitlam] claim that the Governor-General
acted too soon on 11 November 1975, when it was
Whitlam himself who chose that date to force the
Governor-General's hand, by giving faulty and defective
advice?"

The second question was:

"Why did [Whitlam] ignore the Senate in planning
his Party's parliamentary tactics following the
withdrawal of his commission as Prime Minister?"

`

Today, for as long as the prima facie case of the Ombudsman's resignation being able to be seen as improperly forced in breach of Senate privilege continues unredressed, the Governor-General may see a need to intervene in accordance with the provisions of Section 61 of the Constitution. If an house of the Parliament fails to uphold its privileges granted under the Constitution, it may be for the Governor-General to act.

History could repeat itself, today.

Belly,

How to turn around the polls?

Laurie Oakes has come to the rescue, and explaned everything in just a few words.

"They were considering ways to achieve this when
Qantas management did the job for them by locking
out workers and dramatically grounding the airline."

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/gillard-gaining-stature-with-obamas-visit/story-fn56baaq-1226193141843
Source of the source: http://twitter.com/#!/GrogsGamut/status/134970455982485504

Everything done at Qantas shareholders', Qantas striking workers', and the travelling public's expense! Brilliant. Even Richo couldn't be that good.

Why do I hold this vision of a Gary Larsen cartoon, one from the Far Side, of a pen full of closely packed sheep all looking (sheepishly?) vacant, with but one sheep wearing a headset and an enigmatic smile on its dial, with the caption: "Baa baa baa, baa baa ba-ran ..."? Of course, as we all know, the next line is the chorus echoing "Baa baa baa ...", don't we? Beachboys, wasn't it?

Just the other day, the day before the day before yesterday (Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 5:21:12 AM, for the recursively challenged), when I was still fresh in the belief that I had been witness to some carefully scripted theatre between Alan Joyce and Senator Cameron, I concluded a post with the words:

"I could never understand how KRudd could have been
knifed without a word getting out in advance, nor
one voice in dissent. Now I think I can."

Now I think Kevin can, too. But he couldn't have known back in June 2010, could he? Even Sir John Geilgud could not have played that part as an act, could he?

Now, with the imminent arrival of the marines, is it to be a case of 'rendition unto Caesar ...'?

http://twitpic.com/7d6k4b

No wonder Kevin is taking care to look Prime Ministerial. And its looking increasingly likely that not only the Ombudsman, but the Greens as well, are but collateral damage in the shoring-up of what for decades may have been an unrecognised puppet government. The name Vidkun Quisling comes to mind.

Whatever is the Governor-General to do?

Oops! Did I really say all that?

Whilst the question at the conclusion of my post of Saturday, 12 November 2011 at 7:12:54 AM was rhetorical, others are asking as to the G-G's possible intervention with respect to the reinstatement of Allan Asher as Ombudsman. See: http://twitter.com/#!/LaLegale/status/135141871067475968

In canvassing the prospect of the then-Acting-PM Swan advising the G-G call upon Allan Asher to withdraw his resignation as Ombudsman, I was merely observing the niceties of the matter wherein a Statutory Officer accountable to the Parliament reports through the G-G with respect to such things as resignation, or the withdrawal of same. I was not trying to suggest that the G-G should initiate moves to the end of Allan Asher's reinstatement. That initiation is something that could so easily and expediently come from the PM and/or the Special Minister of State.

Whilst it is not for me to suggest or assert what the G-G should or 'must' do in respect to things arising out of the matter of this forced resignation of a Statutory Officer, I am free to make observations as to the true nature of what has happened, and point out instances where the Constitution may be being undermined. Should such observations be found, or be able to be shown, to be correct, then at that point Section 61 of the Constitution indicates the generality of what the G-G may do. Anyone can read it for themselves.

Even Allan Asher himself has made the observation that it seemed at one point as if the Parliament as a whole did not care as to the resourcing of the office of the Ombudsman in his role as Immigration Ombudsman. I suggest that that was before the issues of, first, invasion of Senate privilege, followed, second, by that of usurpation of a prerogative of the Parliament were recognised.

An additional question has since arisen as to whether the departure of DIAC head Metcalfe on extended leave was an attempt to frustrate the Joint Select Committee inquiry into Immigration Detention, constituting a contempt of the Parliament.

FG good morning, I did not flee my thread because of your well put together posts.
I did say I was leaving then did so.
I truly feel a poster is yet again using another name, to hide behind and take bitter swipes.
At past times I would have, rather childishly, but in a normal human way, swapped endless insults.
Yes you uncover interesting things.
My belief is, strongly, the bloke acted badly.
I do not lean on the greens, they deserve the concern shown to them from both sides, they acted badly here too.
Labor has not climbed in the polls, Abbott has fell.
These two leaders, both the wrong ones, are handcuffed together.
Each gets the benefit of the others failures, no fuel shortages there.
You have seen my intrusions, open statements and threads taking stands against my party.
I will NEVER KNOWINGLY defend them while thinking they are wrong.
Forest it is essentially,that no white wash hides the truth.
I like seeing your posts, we will continue to be on opposite sides of the fence but you show no blindness in your posts.

Belly,

I think all of us are on the same side of a fence erected with the tacit consent of many of the 'political master class' we have had inflicted upon us to protect executive government from accountability. That existence of this fence is recognised is witnessed to by the very fact that there exists the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, an office established by an Act of the Parliament, and of its very nature one only accountable thereto, not to executive government, upon some decisions of which that Ombudsman may be charged with investigating and reporting.

The Ombudsman is there for 'the little guy', someone who has become, perhaps unfairly, the victim of an arrogant or vindictive exercise of authority, usually by means of some 'smart-arsed' administrative fiat. Here, however, it is the Ombudsman himself who has become the 'little guy'.

I don't think SH-Y can be be so far accused of having done wrong because she received, and used, the Ombudsman's scripted questions. Nor because, having been declared elected, she represents a point of view with which you and I might happen to disagree. Today may very well become to be her defining moment, however. The Joint Select Committee inquiry into Australia's Immigration Detention Network is today holding hearings in Adelaide. Its Deputy-Chair is SH-Y, a Senator from South Australia. With its meeting being in Adelaide, SH-Y could well be in the chair today.

Today could be SH-Y's golden opportunity to raise the issue of a contempt of that Committee having been constituted by the administrative fiat of sending the permanent head of DIAC on extended leave, and, additionally in breach of Senate privilege, the forcing of the resignation of the Ombudsman, to the end of frustrating that Inquiry by depriving it of two key witnesses.

Failure of the Parliament to uphold its privileges may precipitate a situation utimately requiring the Governor-General to exercise her powers under Section Five of the Constitution in order to uphold the provisions of Sections 49 and 50 thereof.

Fired, not resigning!

Fair comment Forest G, mostly agree.
A not well known fact it was the ALP who introduced the roll.
We stole the idea from a Nordic state, was it Switzerland?
I in anger and distress at some idiots dumped in to ALP safe seats.
That total fool, so called leader of the left faction, Doug the slug Cameron, too many more, are wasting seats.
And yes you may be on to some problems.
However, I started the thread because, then and now, I do not like some one who is there for fairness, be asked questions.
By greens, who help draft and deceive the committee.
A leak, as Kev can be arranged.
The dill who cost in my view Turnbull his leadership, for a time, lost a life time public service job.
SHY in effect knowingly crafted this whole thing and cannot be trusted.

It is interesting, in relation to the issue of the forced resignation of the Ombudsman, that the government quickly announced that no new appointment is immediately planned in replacement of Allan Asher. I suspect that that may be because, like me, more farsighted advisors within the upper echelons of government foresee the prospect of injunctive process if any attempt is made to fill the vacancy.

There has already been intervention by the High Court in relation to the so-called 'Malaysian Solution' proposed by the government in relation to the maritime-arrival asylum-seeker problem. It would only compound the embarrassment for the government if injunctive process was to prevent it appointing someone other than Allan Asher to the vacancy purportedly existing for the office of Ombudsman. Especially so when the forcing of his resignation can be so easily seen to be not unrelated to that whole grab-bag of issues.

It is now a matter of public record that a breach of privilege led to the forcing of Asher's resignation. It is a matter of law that the removal of the Ombudsman from office may only be upon a vote to that effect from each House of the Parliament. It is a matter of fact and of record that no such vote has been taken. It is not hard to see a court finding that no proper vacancy exists, should any attempt be made by the government to fill it.

So what do we see happen? The government does effectively nothing, forcing the undiminished workload of the office onto an unavoidably intimidated deputy as Acting-Ombudsman, leaving Allan Asher unpaid on the sidelines without the benefit of the immunity he should have enjoyed for his testimony before a Committee of the Parliament. This sort of conduct, albeit usually at lower levels, is exactly the reason the role of Ombudsman was seen as necessary in the first place!

'Who will be the Ombudsman's ombudsman?' is the question that recurs to me.

`

To think that just a little pride-swallowing by the government could put this matter to bed!

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

I have to admit FG I thought he went under his own steam.
How ever take your word he was sacked.
I however not side stepping your issues.
For me both him and SHY acted wrongly.

Belly,

You were quite right to think that the Ombudsman 'went [resigned] under his own steam', as you put it. In narrow technicality he did, but only after both the PM and SMoS had made it clear that as a consequence of his alleged subterfuge he had lost the 'confidence' of the government. Nowhere in the media, at the time you opened this topic, was there anything telling you or anyone else anything different. 'Industrial journalism' at work, as Laurie Oakes described it in the Andrew Olle Media Lecture.

That was a disgrace, because the media did not pick up on the recorded facts in Hansard that there was nothing secret whatever as to Allan Asher having had communication with SH-Y, he himself having openly admitted to many such events where he had had contact with politicians, and specifically identified SH-Y as having been one of them, in testimony before a Committee of the Senate.

Indeed, it was upon the basis of this frank and supposedly privileged testimony that the question-upon-notice that elicited the later-to-tabled emails was structured. And to compound the failure, the media, with the exception (after the event) of the Canberra Times, failed to notice or record that the content of those emails appeared to have been leaked to at least some journalists before having been received by the Committee that had asked they be provided, in a second breach of privilege that put the Ombudsman in a bad light as a consequence of the telling of only half the story.

That same leak put the PM in the embarrassing position of having gone off half cocked on the whole matter. It also provided a basis for attack-dog Eric, with memories of having been savaged over the Godwin Grech 'ute-gate' emails, to prematurely rip into SH-Y on the floor of the Senate over her 'role' in the supposed affair.

Bloggers are usurping decisions as to what becomes news because that field is being left vacant by journalists unwilling, or not free, to dig a bit for the truth.

Forrest Gumpp I was lucky enough to see the Oaks thing, very good too.
Yes your points are well put and as much concern to me as you.
As you know I am repelled by Gillard, warned even before Rudd leaked she could not be trusted.
And in truth she never must be.
Above all the impulse moves cash for clunkers, gee really?
A list exists in my head.
I how ever want explanation for the union head getting a seat.
A host of issues, but my belief the thread highlights an action outside trust still lives within me.
I am sorry, gee I truly am, that folk I truly like and respect, here and in life, from the greens, dislike me, for being honest.
It is not fear or concern for Labor, but Australia, that has driven me away from greens.
ONLINE and no other place greens hold the numbers, over represented in such as here, they forget, my views are not minority ones but majority.
You can not preach honesty but practice this type of thing.
If SHY had stood to her feet in the house raised these issues I would admire her,not this however.

Belly,

Here's something I saw on twitter that you may find interesting: http://twitter.com/#!/ForrestGumpp/status/136640435052494848

The link provided by Vexnews delivers one to an item by Bill Shorten, here: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/a-lot-to-offer-our-good-yank-mates/story-e6frezz0-1226195966178

I think I see what you mean about Bill being leadership material for the future. Some very interesting both direct and oblique statements are made, timed very well to coincide with Obama's visit, such as:

"In fact, the thing I admire most about
Barack Obama is how he always talks about
hope, not fear.

It is a lesson for us given the negative,
cynical tall-poppy-chopping we witness in
Australian politics. Learning from good
friends is part of most people's lives and
such lessons are trusted because Australian
and American soldiers have fought on the
same side in wars since World War I. ..."

The 'talk[ing] about hope' and 'learning from good friends' bits put me in mind of that part of the lyrics of 'Buttons and Bows' that goes:

"... But I'll love ya' longer, stronger where
Yer friends don't tote a gun
My bones denounce the buckboard bounce
And the cactus hurts my toes
Let's vamoose where gals keep usin'
Those silks and satins and linen that shows
And I'm all yours in buttons and bows"

And I pointedly, in the circumstances, make no reference to the name of the film from which it comes! (Nor to anything that may have gone cactus on this thread.)

It was also reassuring to see Bill say:

"Institutions such as Medicare,[PBS?]
... make Australia a great place
to live because they are pillars of
a safety net all about people.
.
.
... it is vastly more important to be
the ally the US needs than the ally
any particular American administration
might want.

... [that] honest advice on the
wisdom of a course of action is what
delivers the respect of our friends,
because mates talk straight."

`

Leadership stuff.

"The peril of hunting hornfowl is this, that one never knows if one is the hunter or the hunted, ..."

Forrest Gumpp, it reassures me to see your words.
I am subjected to the charge of BIAS, mostly by the most biased of us.
And may I say, if this was my last day on earth my proudest moments came via my union the AWU.
Knowing Bill Shorten, understanding he is, the man we thought Rudd was, the new light on the hill Latham conned us in to thinking he was.
In Lathams case it became clear after ten minutes in front of him, he was at best a fraud.
I am totally baffled, maybe it is the hung Parliament, but why Bill is not ready stuns me.
3 months in Gillards seat would see him prove my support for him is based on his massive ability and understanding.

All of which about Bill, Belly, is just a little bit of a worry in this discussion as to the possible parliamentary future of, among others, SH-Y, given that prospects for the involvement of the G-G have been explored, be it however so slightly. Was I to be standing in perceived relationship to Bill as does Her Excellency, I would be letting thoughts of a (perhaps extended) vacation (somewhere without mobile phone coverage) exercise my mind.

As a matter of legal technicality, I don't think the Governor-General asks to take leave. The Constitution would certainly appear to provide in generality for such an eventuality, in its Section 126. If I have understood Sir David Smith correctly in some of his published observations as to the Vice-Regal office, it appears Her Excellency herself would be the effective first and final authority with respect to the taking and granting of leave. Section 126 provides for the appointment of a deputy to exercise "... such powers and functions of the Governor-General as [she] thinks fit to assign ...".

I'd be ringing General Mike Jeffery and enquiring as to his health, and, in amongst the polite small-talk I'd be sounding him out as to whether he could see his way clear to covering for me whilst I took a bit of leave. If I was perceived as standing where Her Exellency stands, that is. There would be absolutely no question as to the acceptability to the Australian public of General Jeffery standing in as Deputy G-G, he having been HE's predecessor and all. Like I said, Section 126 provides "in generality". It would be a shame not to exhaust every aspect of the meaning of that expression, wouldn't it?

The Letters Patent gazetted in No. S 334 of 24 August 1984 don't seem to envisage such a situation as is entertained above, and consequently attempt no constraint of the possible actions of the G-G permitted by the Constitution in such a postulated scenario.

Fully so deputised, Mike could fire somebody, if necessary!

I doubt Bill has much to worry about, unless he likes his mum inlaw about as much as I do, that would be sad.
I understand your concerns, openness is my request and get dills out of the Parliament.
However, still firm, SHY and her pit pony mate, Be aware high and middle income public servants are prone to be greens at heart, broke the rules.
May be of interest this GG Rudd put her there, reminds me my party, Republicanism on our lists, puts some one more Royal than HMTQ in a job we do not need.
Should have been Noel Pierson, or Good looking gold coast meter maid
Topless as a treat for the troops

Not ready to add anything ATM, just keeping the topic open.