because a Senator "claimed an elderly person had died as a result of the recent telecommunications outage". There are demands for her resignation. The Senator apparently told a reporter to leave her property.
It is a little more complicated than that of course. The Senator apparently "tweeted" something that was an error of judgment. It would have been better left unsaid but it was said. The Senator was "acting on information given her at the time" and she has apologised for that and for any distress caused to the family.
Apparently that is not enough for her political opponents or the media. They want her resignation. Why? I would not have thought it was a hanging offence.
The "boss" of the telecommunications company is being faced with similar demands to be "held to account". She just happened to be in Europe on a long planned and legitimate break but somehow she is responsible for something going wrong and it not being fixed immediately. That she is not a technician and has not set the system up is beside the point according to the government and the media. The system has to work flawlessly. The country depends on it.
Any Downunderites old enough to read this will also remember a previous Prime Minister being out of the country on holiday when a number of serious fires broke out. Now the fires were not started by him. It is the responsibility of the state's to fight fires. There was absolutely nothing he could do. Unlike another former Prime Minister he was not a volunteer fire fighter. He was much more likely to get in the way and take away time from those who were organising the ground operations. None of that mattered to the then Opposition or the media. He was excoriated by the Opposition in the media and snide comments were made about his fire-fighting predecessor as well. It was as if all the volunteer hours of the latter counted for nothing. He was not there for "just a couple of hours" as the media tried to suggest.
All this is interesting because in the past week or so our present Prime Minister has made more than one very serious error of judgment. Yes, he was criticised. There were some suggestions he should resign but the "outrage" has simply not been there.
I was told, "Oh it's because they (the media) don't want to upset the visit from the Indian Prime Minister." Really? Is that all there was to it?
I suppose it has nothing at all to do with the size of the Indian community in a state which has an election coming up, an election both the state and federal government are concerned about. They may not lose the election but they are still worried about the potential size of the drop in support.
The Senator at the beginning of this made an error of judgment. We all do that. I am guilty of many. Hers was not a hanging offence. She does not need to resign. The same goes for the head of the telecommunications company. She cannot be held responsible for a technical problem outside her area of expertise. It is like asking the administrator of a hospital to be responsible for a failure of a well qualified surgeon when something goes wrong. The Prime Minister is however responsible for the two deliberate and inappropriate choices he has made recently. They could and should have been avoided - but where is the "outrage"?