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.