The Malevolent Morrison Muppet Goverment

[pietillidie]

I just read about this. WTF? Did I read right? Health, finance, treasury, home affairs and resources are not peripheral ministries. Since when does anyone entrust one person to commandeer all of those roles, let alone a news cycle chaser during a crisis?

I would be livid, as I vote very much on the quality of the team in those ministries, something even more obvious in a parliamentary democracy. It's complete democratic subversion; control without accountability, party rule without a party. Sure, people would support short-term measures or a longer stint in control of peripheral ministries, but this is beyond comprehension.

It's the complete opposite of what he's trying to say. The problem is a lack of hands and focused insight during a crisis in the most important roles in the nation. It's miles too hard for one person to be across that many things at the best of times in a small-medium company, let alone someone of very modest intelligence like himself, at a moment when a concentration of intellect was essential, overseeing a nation.

So he was every bit as authoritarian as he looked; he was just another deceitful snake dressed up in faux Christian garb.

This is far bigger than some of you have been lulled into believing. Just imagine it's a public company for a moment a tiny fraction of the size and importance of a nation, and during crisis. Most people bring help in at those moments.

Are you all sure he wasn't secretly your mothers' consulting gynaecologist during that time as well?

[watt price tully]

^ You did read it right PTID. It’s gobsmacking.

[stui magpie]

What constitutional issues?

The Governer general approved it and has said "nothing to see here"

All of the commentary says it would have been fine, but he should have told people.

I haven't seen a single piece pointing out a constitutional issue, just a breach of custom and practice.

If you believe there is a constitutional issue, please explain.

It's a constitutional issue because our constitutional framework depends entirely upon the conventions of responsible government in addition to the written constitution. You say it's just a 'breach of custom and practice' - that's the point. These customs and practices are at the absolute heart of our system of government. It's hard to think of a more central convention than the chain of accountability that holds ministers responsible to parliament. It simply can't work if parliament doesn't know who the ministers are (nevermind the problem of other ministers including those being 'second chaired' don't realise they are being 'shadowed').

Thank you for the most concise explanation I've read anywhere, that makes sense.

Bonus points for demonstrating that a clear point can be made without unnecessary condescension and ego stroking.

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

^ You've got to grasp the distinction between "captain's calls" as an exercise of prerogative power and the exercise of power conferred by Parliament upon specific ministers under statute. I've already explained that - and people keep posting as if it isn't a fundamental distinction - this is the legal equivalent of driving at full speed down the highway on the wrong side of the road.

I'm done, though. I don't know why I bother trying to explain how these things actually operate.

[stui magpie]

Except that driving full speed down the wrong side of the highway is clearly illegal.

[watt price tully]

^^ David that’s a bizarre definition of Ethics “no harm was done”
That’s also quite an extraordinary piece of minimisation to rationalise away the gravitas of this shocking behaviour by Scotty. Perhaps you should consider a job in marketing

[pietillidie]

David, it's also wrong technically. I get that ministries aren't always aligned to expertise (disgracefully enough), but that's where visibility becomes crucial as a backstop. Now, I know this is a problem that long precedes Morrison, but this case is a quadruple whammy: (a) no expertise, (b) no accountability and visibility, (c) the universal political problem of no serious or proven management and leadership record, and (d) a massive moment of crisis.

WTF then is being offered here that would be accepted in any other serious domain in life?

Basically, you get nothing except news cycle management, which is exactly how Morrison has approached the problem, thereby reasoning he's done nothing out of the ordinary.

[stui magpie]

Anthony Albanese never expected the solicitor-general would find his prime ministerial predecessor acted illegally in secretly taking control of five ministries.

The legality of what took place was never at the heart of the new government's thinking.

The whole reason Scott Morrison was able to instruct the Governor-General to make him effectively a duplicate minister at five ministries was because it was legal.

Unlike driving down the wrong side of the road at speed.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/ ... /101360438

Interestingly the Solicitor General was only asked about the single portfolio where Morrison actually used his powers. Health was a different argument because at least others (if not the public) knew about it.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/ ... /101358232

I am curious as to why Albanese is pushing this so hard, I can't believe he's so offended by the principle, generally politicians follow Groucho Marx's ideals.

Labor's been elected, he's PM, Morrison hardly needs discrediting anymore (he's done most of the work himself) and he's hardly a threat going forward. Yeah it's standard operational procedure for every new government to spend the first 12 months in office bagging out the previous administration, but that's usually to set themselves up to dodge election committments.

[watt price tully]

Anthony Albanese never expected the solicitor-general would find his prime ministerial predecessor acted illegally in secretly taking control of five ministries.

The legality of what took place was never at the heart of the new government's thinking.

The whole reason Scott Morrison was able to instruct the Governor-General to make him effectively a duplicate minister at five ministries was because it was legal.

Unlike driving down the wrong side of the road at speed.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/ ... /101360438

Interestingly the Solicitor General was only asked about the single portfolio where Morrison actually used his powers. Health was a different argument because at least others (if not the public) knew about it.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/ ... /101358232

I am curious as to why Albanese is pushing this so hard, I can't believe he's so offended by the principle, generally politicians follow Groucho Marx's ideals.

Labor's been elected, he's PM, Morrison hardly needs discrediting anymore (he's done most of the work himself) and he's hardly a threat going forward. Yeah it's standard operational procedure for every new government to spend the first 12 months in office bagging out the previous administration, but that's usually to set themselves up to dodge election committments.

I think you’re well understating just how far Morrison trashed convention and just how far he went with not just this but a whole raft of usual political behaviour by previous PM’s. It’s a huge departure from usual indeed normative political behaviour.

It wasn’t just a bit of Pork barrelling but he went for the whole sty when it came to the issue of sports rorts and similarly with the car parking issues. Further this extended to the way he ran the government.

That then was reflected in his callous disregard for political convention namely the lack of accountability and responsibility be being so secretive not just to his political enemies but to his colleagues.

The Libs are on board with not only an investigation but a likely legal remedy to close this loophole.

Accordingly I don’t actually think Albanese is running it that hard merely holding the person and people to account. This too will help the Libs by affording the Libs an opportunity to say(in effect) it wasn’t us but the calculating c*nt Scotty from Marketing.

[Pies4shaw]

What constitutional issues?

The Governer general approved it and has said "nothing to see here"

All of the commentary says it would have been fine, but he should have told people.

I haven't seen a single piece pointing out a constitutional issue, just a breach of custom and practice.

If you believe there is a constitutional issue, please explain.

Time for you to read Stephen's advice, I think. It's not too bad - but then, he did learn from the best. Because he had it in his 1992 Con & Admin lecture notes, he didn't need to read about the question on Nick's before he advised that

To the extent that the public and the parliament are not informed of appointments that have been made under s 64 of the constitution, the principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined.

From the moment of his appointment he was both legally and politically responsible for the administration of that department, and yet he could not be held accountable for the way that he performed (or did not perform) that role.

Thus, Stephen concluded that the appointments were:

inconsistent with the conventions and practices that form an essential part of the system of responsible government.

Only someone who had failed "Introduction to Public Law" - or, perhaps, never studied it - would fail to grasp the basic concept that a breach of constitutional convention just is a constitutional issue.

Of course, the gist of Stephen's advice can be reduced to one sentence for the peanut gallery - and, indeed it was:

It's assuming responsibility as Minister without telling anyone that's the problem.

[pietillidie]

Anthony Albanese never expected the solicitor-general would find his prime ministerial predecessor acted illegally in secretly taking control of five ministries.

The legality of what took place was never at the heart of the new government's thinking.

The whole reason Scott Morrison was able to instruct the Governor-General to make him effectively a duplicate minister at five ministries was because it was legal.

Unlike driving down the wrong side of the road at speed.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/ ... /101360438

Interestingly the Solicitor General was only asked about the single portfolio where Morrison actually used his powers. Health was a different argument because at least others (if not the public) knew about it.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/ ... /101358232

I am curious as to why Albanese is pushing this so hard, I can't believe he's so offended by the principle, generally politicians follow Groucho Marx's ideals.

Labor's been elected, he's PM, Morrison hardly needs discrediting anymore (he's done most of the work himself) and he's hardly a threat going forward. Yeah it's standard operational procedure for every new government to spend the first 12 months in office bagging out the previous administration, but that's usually to set themselves up to dodge election committments.

Yeah, make the point and move on. Mind you, they probably think they have to make mileage of everything in advance of something going against them. But once the point is made, move on, especially if the opposition are showing signs of being more moderate.

Who's the oppo leader now? Are they vaguely sane? If it's another Glib culture warrior the well will quickly be poisoned and it will be back to tit-for-tat. The Glibs/Tories/GOP and their extremist media army drive the whole thing, so the only way to counter them is to out-news and out-scandal them. And so the BS inflation consumes every joule of people's already limited brains.

That's why I didn't mind Moderate Malcolm. It's just a pity there aren't more moderates on the right so serious discussion can take place for a sustained period.

[stui magpie]

^

Dutton is now leader of the opposition. Whether he is vaguely sane appears to be entirely subjective.

[David]

[watt price tully]

Hugh Parkinson is quite illuminating


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQzdhJku8ds