Hawker's interesting logic - clearly one sided

Comments on Bruce Hawker “Libs outsmarted by clever scheme to pair the chair”, 27/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/libs-outsmarted-by-clever-scheme-to-pair-the-chair/story-e6frg6zo-1225929699265


While what you said might have some truth, they probably can also be applied to Labor and Ms Gillard.

For example, What moral conviction does Gillard have? E.g, carbon tax or no carbon tax? What about the dropping of education in her announcement of her ministry, considering she was the education minister for quite some time.

Further your view of the pairing is problematic. If it is not, why did the solicitor general have to use the wording of informal as opposed to formal agreement?

Why should the parliament be engaged in such dodgy work? To just suit the political needs of a political party at the expense of parliamentary integrity and constitution?

That is hardly worth it!

So, politics is politics. Neither side is tall in the high moral ground.

There is so much hypocrisy around!

A fine balance in judgement required

Comments on DANIELLE CRONIN “PS warned over damaging leaks”, 7/08/2009, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/ps-warned-over-damaging-leaks/1589609.aspx

While the PS commissioner had a point, it is nevertheless not always clear cut between whistleblower and leaking. For example, if the authorities that the commissioner said whistleblower should report to are the problems themselves, how can a whistleblower report to them?

So in the current form of parliamentary democracy and politics, PS has to make a judgement between legitimate and inappropriate leaking.

It is a fine balance of judgement.