Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[The Punter]

I'm not sure why they have to be high-profile people (therefore demanding a high salary).

Why not make it a job for the outgoing ACT Mayor or some other standard reward? Since they get a free house, how about just a $350k salary. I'm sure they could make do.

Most of them don't even bother to live in the free house they're given, they're so important.

I wouldn't know enough about former Canberra Mayors to comment on whether a municipal official would have the required expertise. For me, Ninian Stephen and William Deane are the gold standards. Former High Court Justices have the required expertise in constitutional law.

They don't have to be high profile: most people couldn't name a current High Court judge, me included.

 

[QuietB]

It certainly involves only applying rules when they suit you

lol - from the party of five secret ministries Morrison

I don't think I will. Transparency is the best disinfectant.

lol again

 

[The Punter]

lol - from the party of five secret ministries Morrison

What Morrison did regarding the secret Ministries was a disgrace

 

[QuietB]

People defending 700k a year to a nothing position. fmd

Given it is written onto the constitution "nothing position" might not quite be accurate.

 

[Carn The Berries]

What Morrison did regarding the secret Ministries was a disgrace

And has been condemned by every man and his dog. A pretty ordinary attempt at points scoring.

 

[The Punter]

And has been condemned by every man and his dog. A pretty ordinary attempt at points scoring.

The points are worthless, so I have no interest in scoring them.

Our institutions need to be protected, and Morrison's behaviour was one of the most egregious attempts to circumvent this. Still not as bad as anything Trump has tried on.

It also demonstrates the important of the Governor-General role, who should have insisted on the appointments being gazetted.

 

[Saint]

I wouldn't know enough about former Canberra Mayors to comment on whether a municipal official would have the required expertise. For me, Ninian Stephen and William Deane are the gold standards. Former High Court Justices have the required expertise in constitutional law.

They don't have to be high profile: most people couldn't name a current High Court judge, me included.

Cosgrove, Hurley, Mostyn.

None of these are legal or constitutional scholars.

They're appointing as if it's ceremonial, not requiring legal expertise.

I'd be happy with some KC to get the job in retirement or some no-name Legal Professor if law and constitution is important.

If they appoint military officers or business people, what exactly is the skill set they bring worthy of $700k and a house and a million free lunch/dinners?

 

[The Punter]

Cosgrove, Hurley, Mostyn.

None of these are legal or constitutional scholars.

They're appointing as if it's ceremonial, not requiring legal expertise.

I'd be happy with some KC to get the job in retirement or some no-name Legal Professor if law and constitution is important.

If they appoint military officers or business people, what exactly is the skill set they bring worthy of $700k and a house and a million free lunch/dinners?

I've already made the argument around here that at the very least Ms Mostyn has an unconventional skill set for the GG role. Almost like being a perennial corporate board member now qualifies you. I wish her all the best.

Hurley has not been a success. See earlier comments about many, many Ministries.

But the GG is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. In practice that doesn't mean the same thing as it does in the USA, but I can see why the military background could be seen as a qualification.

 

[QuietB]

There's pages and pages of people attacking the Libs, not sure why you'd expect one of their members to join in, he does a decent job trying to explain how it works.

The ALP explanation seems to be the totalitarian one "You follow the rules or you're expelled, no room for any deviation whatsoever, not even for human rights or genocide". Who would choose to join such a party. I understand if you're in a Union there's not really any other political party choice. But geez, why would anybody who wants to make the country better join the ALP so they can be told what to do by corrupt Union leaders like the religious zealots of the Shoppies.

ALP's position is not "totalitarian" - it is collectivism, which is precisely what the union movement is about.

Cosgrove, Hurley, Mostyn.

None of these are legal or constitutional scholars.

They're appointing as if it's ceremonial, not requiring legal expertise.

I'd be happy with some KC to get the job in retirement or some no-name Legal Professor if law and constitution is important.

If they appoint military officers or business people, what exactly is the skill set they bring worthy of $700k and a house and a million free lunch/dinners?

Retired KC will probably want $700k a week

 

[Demonic Ascent]

1. Long standing Labor doctrine states that members present a united front with any debate and disagreement hashed out at caucus.

2. Everyone votes with the party in parliament.

3. She agreed to this when she agreed to be a Labor party candidate.

4. She is an upper house senator who received over 99% of her votes above the line - aka votes for party, not individual preference.

5. Her election to the senate was based on her use of Labor resources and funding, along with party backing.

6. If she did not want to follow established policy then she should have run as an independent, using her own resources.

7. The motion itself was introduced by the Greens, knowing full well that it would not be successfully voted on without Labor submitting amendments that aligned with their policy of a two state solution with a peace deal.

8. The Greens and the Liberal party denied the amendments (as is their right) and the senator decided to cross the floor anyway.

Conclusion.

The entire motion was a stunt. It was never meant to pass.

If Payman felt so strongly about this issue she should have joined the greens senate ticket or ran as an independent.

Payman knew exactly what she was getting into when she joined the Labor party. This is not some kind of rug pull the party has done to her.

She was probably silly enough to believe that the ALP would adopt the party platform instead of hanging party members who do support it out to dry.

Do they never allow conscience votes?

 

[Saint]

I've already made the argument around here that at the very least Ms Mostyn has an unconventional skill set for the GG role. Almost like being a perennial corporate board member now qualifies you. I wish her all the best.

Hurley has not been a success. See earlier comments about many, many Ministries.

But the GG is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. In practice that doesn't mean the same thing as it does in the USA, but I can see why the military background could be seen as a qualification.

The CiC role is still mostly ceremonial. The only thing of any consequence that a GG has ever done (at least post ww2), is the dismissal and the political inaction of Hurley over the multiple ministries.

 

[The Punter]

The CiC role is still mostly ceremonial. The only thing of any consequence that a GG has ever done (at least post ww2), is the dismissal and the political inaction of Hurley over the multiple ministries.

Just because something is purely procedural doesn't make it inconsequential.

The Governor-General dissolves the parliament so elections can be held. In 1983, the GG had to make a decision about whether the Fraser Government had met the criteria for a double dissolution election. Fraser was in a hurry in an effort to avoid Hawke (he failed). That was of consequence.

 

[burge13]

Just because something is purely procedural doesn't make it inconsequential.

The Governor-General dissolves the parliament so elections can be held. In 1983, the GG had to make a decision about whether the Fraser Government had met the criteria for a double dissolution election. Fraser was in a hurry in an effort to avoid Hawke (he failed). That was of consequence.

busy in 1983 but what about the next 40 years?

You keep saying this like no one else could possibly ever do it, and cheaper.

 

[The Punter]

busy in 1983 but what about the next 40 years?

You keep saying this like no one else could possibly ever do it, and cheaper.

So who would dissolve the parliament if not the Governor-General?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

So who would dissolve the parliament if not the Governor-General?

A security guard.

 

[Gough]

There's plenty of discussion to be had about the nature of our HoS but I thought it was agreed that we did need one.

 

[burge13]

So who would dissolve the parliament if not the Governor-General?

Me. It really isn't a big deal, anyone, you choose. I dont think very many Australians GAF who does it

And that's important because we're paying their salary

 

[Sttew]

A security guard.

And spread Covid?

 

[The Punter]

Me. It really isn't a big deal, anyone, you choose. I dont think very many Australians GAF who does it

And that's important because we're paying their salary

What would your role be?

 

[burge13]

What would your role be?

Chief Parliamentary Dissolvement Officer
Salary $400k pa
Pension $250k pa for life

 

[Carn The Berries]

Chief Parliamentary Dissolvement Officer
Salary $400k pa
Pension $250k pa for life

So you'd pay someone 4/7ths of what they're being paid now, for a role that makes up about 0.1% of the duties they currently perform (this particular part of the role hasn't been executed since the 70s)?

We'd still need a HoS as well....

Do you do your own tax? Your maths seems very iffy...

 

[burge13]

So you'd pay someone 4/7ths of what they're being paid now, for a role that makes up about 0.1% of the duties they currently perform (this particular part of the role hasn't been executed since the 70s)?

We'd still need a HoS as well....

Do you do your own tax? Your maths seems very iffy...

All Punter has said they do is dissolve parliament so I'm taking the piss

but 0.1% is generous. Be closer to 10%, these people are not busy. You don't need to cheerlead for them

 

[Saint]

Cosgrove and Hurley barely lived in Canberra, they were not doing constitutional duties for 90% of the time. Other than the ceremonial stuff and constitutional stuff, they probably had 80% of their time spare.

The Serjeant at Arms is on over $200k, and their job is to wield a mace to prevent MPs from fighting.

I guess what most people are arguing for here, (or at least I am), is that if it's going to take $700k (plus a house, car, flights, expenses - it's more like a $800k package) to get a big name, then do we really need a big name? Why not get a constitutional law professor for $300k?

 

[Saint]

ALP's position is not "totalitarian" - it is collectivism, which is precisely what the union movement is about.

Retired KC will probably want $700k a week

Union members have free votes over EBA's. They're not just all forced to vote however the Union says or quit.

 

[Festerz]

The ALP National President Wayne Swan has released a statement on the Senator Payman issue.

Discuss in the context of Australian Labor Party political history and the current socio-political environment in Australia (limit 500 words).