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