Grow a pair Mal - Sack Brandis

[Outlaw Yogi]

Upon 1st hearing Brandis has restricted access to Gleeson unless vetted by Brandis 1st, I thought Brandis was up to no good.
Once I learnt Gleeson was going beyond his brief and playing politics behind closed doors, I figured Gleeson has compromised his position.

My view regardless of personalities is Brandis was elected and Gleeson was appointed, thus it is Gleeson who should resign. Reading above I see that Gleeson has done just that.
Problem solved.

Too bad Gillian Triggs doesn't realise her position is now untenable and do the same.
Apparently she approached Brandis offering her resignation if her reputation could be protected and was assured of alternate employment. Now she claims Brandis approached her regarding her resignation. I suppose we should expect a retraction/correction of that claim by her when his briefing notes are aired?
But Triggs herself destroyed her own reputation, and what sane individual would give her employment now?

[Aussie]

....and the truth comes out. The Direction was made to target Gleeson because he was not trusted by Government. A Statutory Appointee is being deliberately manipulated politically.

Link.

Mr Laming made the comment on a panel with Labor MP Terri Butler and 612 ABC Brisbane radio presenter Steve Austin.

Laming: "The regulation to throw out, that the two senators are going to do, I support that. You no longer need this regulation because Mr Gleeson is gone."

Austin: "Has the Government a replacement in mind?"

Butler: "You're saying that regulation was needed because of the person who was occupying the office?"

Laming: "No, you just flipped that, you flipped it 100 per cent. I said it's no longer needed now because he's gone, and if it gets thrown out it doesn't matter — Justin Gleeson's gone."

Butler: "So you're saying the regulation was about him?"

Laming: "No, you just flipped what I said. I said now that he's gone, you don't need that regulation."

Austin: "Well, the regulation is going to be rejected by Parliament…"

Laming: "That's right, and it's not a problem now, because you are now appointing someone else. This was done because they didn't trust Gleeson."

Austin: "It does sound like the regulation was set up for Justin Gleeson, doesn't it. Because the way I'm interpreting that…"

Laming: "True."

Austin: "…it does sound like it's…"

Laming: "I didn't say that, but you can infer that."

Austin: "Well that's what it sounds like to me, am I wrong?"

Butler: "That is the inference that anyone would draw, isn't it? Wouldn't anyone draw that inference?"

Laming: "He's gone, you don't need the regulation now."

[IQS.RLOW]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Just another ALP hack ensconced in a role he was completely unsuited for because he was a typical ALP plant.

GAWN!

[Rorschach]

Some idiot at Ozpol has come up with the theory that the Direction was aimed at Gleeson...
Yet the Direction was in play before they knew Gleeson had spoken to Dreyfus... Oh dear

[Aussie]

Some idiot at Ozpol has come up with the theory that the Direction was aimed at Gleeson...
Yet the Direction was in play before they knew Gleeson had spoken to Dreyfus... Oh dear

And it was, Roach.

Link.

[IQS.RLOW]

ALP mole cries after being caught out and defended by lefty douchebags...bew hew

[Rorschach]

LOL apparently Lamming is spreading crap now... (he is such a goose), just supposition of course... biased, wrong, politically motivated...


Watch the ALP roll out the geese...

[Aussie]

What he said Roach, was unequivocal. Words to the effect of...."Now Gleeson is gone, we no longer need the Directive."

Was he outright lying?

[Rorschach]

Brandis, Gleeson legal breakdown is not a faultless divorce
The Australian
October 27, 2016
Niki Savva

The last time a federal attorney-general was enveloped in so much controversy was back in February 1975 when then prime minister Gough Whitlam appointed Lionel Murphy to the High Court.

That did not begin or end well, with Murphy’s death in 1986 from cancer after years of allegations of impropriety in which he fought to successfully retain his position on the bench, although there are those who believe his illness stalled action that would have removed him.

There is nothing even remotely approaching such a crisis now, although memories of Murphy were revived, not just because of the publicity surrounding the troubled relationship between Attorney-General George Brandis and his solicitor-general Justin Gleeson, but because of Gleeson’s choice of words that the end of the relationship was an “irretrievable breakdown”, echoing Murphy’s hard-fought campaign to introduce no-fault divorce laws before his appointment to the court.

Gleeson probably knew this, or if he didn’t he should have. Gleeson also should have known, and if he didn’t he should have, that the minute he decided not to tell the Attorney-General that he had spoken to opposition spokesman on legal affairs Mark Dreyfus during the election campaign he was doomed and divorce was imminent, because of a lack of candour about behaviour which could be construed, and was in fact, inappropriate. It was not a no-fault breakdown. Gleeson, charged with attending to detail, should not have overlooked this one, particularly when the relationship was already rocky.

It is no good Dreyfus denying he played any part in Gleeson’s demise. He was instrumental. His target was Brandis, but the victim was the man Dreyfus appointed to the job. The two questions Dreyfus asked of Gleeson — if he was consulted, and if he approved of the change to ensure requests for legal advice had to go through the attorney’s office — were politically loaded. If neither Dreyfus nor Gleeson foresaw the possible consequences arising from their conversation then they should not be anywhere near politics. Or the law for that matter.

Dreyfus should not have asked, and Gleeson should not have disclosed. It was impolitic of Dreyfus to inquire, and imprudent for Gleeson to answer and then not tell his boss. It was Gleeson himself who suggested last November that a review of the way requests for legal opinions from him should be conducted. Gleeson could have been right in counselling Brandis against the approach eventually adopted. But he was “consulted” contrary to his later assertions.

There is no law that says Brandis had to accept his advice. But there is a convention that people in jobs such as Gleeson’s do not blab about what happened to the government’s political opponents.

Gleeson is described by one senator as “precious, highly strung and arrogant” and his intemperate rebuke of inquisitors interrupting him during the Senate inquiry was rated the worst performance by a public servant since Godwin Grech.

Labor now seeks to build a case that the government is ridding itself of troublesome public servants delivering unwelcome advice, roping in the head of Barnaby Joyce’s Agriculture Department, Paul Grimes, whose letter (written like it was destined to be revealed) questioning his minister’s integrity and declaring their relationship had broken down should have also contained his resignation, and the president of the Human Rights Commission Gillian Triggs, who should also resign for misleading the Senate.

There have been some outstanding public servants in recent times: Peter Shergold, Dennis Richardson, Frances Adamson, Ted Evans, Ken Henry, Martin Parkinson, Mike Callaghan to name a few. But there have been some absolute duds too. Public servants don’t always get it right, and even the best occasionally allow their political allegiances to interfere with their judgment.

Constitutional law expert Anne Twomey injects some calm logic into Labor’s hysteria about the end of public service independence. She ventures that the events surrounding Gleeson’s departure will likely strengthen the independence of the solicitor general’s office because they have shown the importance people attach to it, and that any attempts at meddling would only incite controversy. The professor predicts whoever takes on the office now will be in a position to bolster its independence.

Brandis has received important support from Senator Nick Xenophon, who said that while the directive must be dropped, he accepted the Attorney-General’s word that there was consultation with Gleeson before it was introduced, and that there was no attempt to nobble him, nor any malice on Brandis’s part. And Xenophon will not support a censure motion against Brandis.

Brandis is no Murphy, although there are government musings about elevating him to the High Court, or making him high commissioner in London. Brandis shows no inclination to leave. He has told friends he is happy to remain Attorney-General in a Turnbull government, which he hopes will be for many years.

Say Brandis did depart. It would not create a vacancy for Tony Abbott, not after his behaviour last Thursday after Peter Dutton proved to him there was a paper trail in and out of his office on the deal with David Leyonhjelm to impose a sunset clause on the Adler rifle import ban just before he lost the prime ministership, although he had no memory of it. Abbott said he would correct the public record before question time, decided not to, then threw the Prime Minister and two of his own allies, Dutton and Michael Keenan, under Bill’s bus. No one knows why he changed his mind and decided to continue the fiction his office was not involved, but they have their suspicions. The erosion of trust between Abbott and his colleagues is now so profound one senior minister predicted that “never in a million years” would Turnbull appoint Abbott to cabinet.

Even his former friends see no solution, short of Abbott quitting the parliament. Either inside the tent or out of it, they foresee problems. Every time there is a leak from cabinet, guilty or not, suspicion would immediately fall on Abbott. Or they fear an issue would arise where the former prime minister disagreed enough with the present Prime Minister to quit and precipitate another crisis.

This is another relationship that has irretrievably broken down. Permanent separation, preferably by continents, is the only solution. The feud between Andrew Peacock and John Howard lasted for 13 years, helping keep the Coalition in opposition, which ended only when Peacock resigned from parliament in 1994, leaving Howard to go on to win the 1996 election, then appoint Peacock ambassador to the US.

[Aussie]

I've seen and read that right wing apologist Savva many times. What she cutely and tellingly ignores in that pathetically and typically partisan piece is the liar here. Brandis. All was within four walls until Brandis publically verballed Gleeson, in Parliament, with the patently false allegation that the SG was aware of and had been consulted about this Directive (WHICH IS SOON TO BE CAST TO THE SEWER BY THE SENATE) when he obviously was not. He is entitled in those circumstances to defend himself, and the position he had, against outright lies, and he correctly did so when asked by Dreyfus, and then later before the Senate Committee.