TBC

Heh, heh, U R too good for me. Make that a weasel thread, all part of the family, badgers, pollies and so on.

A few days ago I asked "who gains by Garrett's demise".

Well, it looks like that's been answered: "Greg Combet, the Assistant Minister for Climate Change, has become the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, and will have direct responsibility for the energy-efficiency programs."

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/no-sugar-coating-on-this-pill-20100226-p952.html?autostart=1

Does anyone else remember what Combet's job was before he got his key to the Parliamentary dunny block?

The Unions have a lot to answer for, but they never will as long as Labor's in power...

Antiseptic,

Combet, of course, was the head of the ACTU for about 7 years. You say he has gained. He may well have gained a headache to go with his enhanced position and salary (presumably).

In the video attached to your link, Combet was described as Labor's Mr Fix-it. What does this actually mean? Does he fix real-world problems or does he just fix the political problem? Anyone have any insights on this that they're prepared to share?

-- -- -- --

I came across this insightful article by Peter Hartcher which, I think, explains pretty well what happened and the reasons why: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/putting-a-ceiling-on-the-scandal-20100226-p915.html

Garret's demotion had nothing to with a hyperbolic, non existent culpability, in the death of anybody. Claims of that are both over the top and entirely party politically motivated.

Garret's crime, if it was one, was not being both bureaucratically
and politically inept. Demotion was appropriate but beyond that is sheer nonsense.

As I said originally the businesses involved need investigation for *they* have the responsibility under law.(full stop)

Any claims beyond that are tenuous at best and demonstrate that the the commenters are either party political players,(who have suspended reality for the sake of party partisanship, public point scoring) or have no real understanding, of the role and limitations of a minister of the crown. There is no direct commercial equivalent.This is true on many levels.

Surely, it's time we focused on the victims both rellies of the dead and the now unemployed workers.

The latter *is* the current government's responsibility to fix and quickly. I think, Combet's bureaucratic and political experience will out.

Ministries require experience and pragmatism, not sheer idealism and enthusiasm. Garret was always going to fail, too much responsibility, expectation, inexperience and too soon, perhaps too big an ego to decline.

If he continues he may recover.

>>Garret's crime, if it was one, was not being both bureaucratically
and politically inept. Demotion was appropriate but beyond that is sheer nonsense.<<

examinator,

I assume you mean that Garrett's "crime" was OF "being both bureaucratically and politically inept" rather than not. If so, I tend to agree that demotion is appropriate at this time. But it could be the start of a slippery slide for him.

I do however believe that Abbott has a point when he says that it isn't right that Garrett is now to have a holiday from the real work, while he stays in Cabinet and presumably attracts the same salary as before. Unfortunately, the fact that Abbott has said it will ensure that this situation won't change, as Rudd simply cannot afford to be seen to be done over by Abbott. Ironically, it is Abbott's approach that is actually locking Garrett into place.

>>I think, Combet's bureaucratic and political experience will out.<<

Is this bureaucratic and political experience real or is it straight out of the ALP handbook of pre-emptivley talking up their man so that he gets a rails run from the commentariat? I am seriously interested to see some facts.