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.]