What the previous Prime Minister

of Downunder did was foolish but it was not illegal. What the present Prime Minister is doing is not merely foolish but vindictive.

It may also verge on the edges of illegal as he is ignoring the advice given him by the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General would have sought advice from the best Constitutional lawyers and that was the outcome. Was Sec. 64 of the Constitution breached? No? Then nothing can be done about it.  

Yes, what the previous Prime Minister did in quietly appointing himself to multiple ministerial positions during the pandemic was unconventional, foolish and suggestive of a lack of trust in his team. It was not illegal. It has been done before and if other people had been concentrating on their jobs instead of panicking about the pandemic then it would not have happened. The Ministers themselves should have been more alert and asking , "Why were you at Government House today Prime Minister?" 

That the media apparently knew nothing is absolutely ridiculous. It is simply not possible, unless the Prime Minister went through a back gate in an unmarked car driven by someone sworn to secrecy, for a visit to have gone unnoticed. Perhaps he went in at the dead of night? I don't think so.

Having a major inquiry now, one headed by a retired High Court judge, suggests this is nothing more than a vindictive act on the part of the present Prime Minister.  Calls for the previous Prime Minister to resign from his position in parliament are also nothing short of vindictive.  He may have been foolish and shown an apparent lack of trust in his team but, I will repeat this again, he did nothing illegal. 

Under a different electoral system this man would likely still be Prime Minister. The party he was leading actually had more first preference votes. It  is simply the compulsory nature of the preferential voting which can lead to unexpected and unwanted results. It is a system which can destabilise democracy but the major parties believe it works in their favour and thus wish to retain it - for now. In the past the lack of social media probably did allow the system to work that way. That is no longer true and we now have a system where a party like  the Greens, who have only a small number of votes overall, can have just a few members but the power to make great demands.

The inquiry which is to be held must therefore be seen for what it is - a distraction designed to take away the focus on the present government's lack of progress, their failure to even begin implementing the policies they went to the election with. We have yet more "inquires", "consultations", "round tables" and "Royal Commissions" being held by  a party which has had years to prepare to govern and are now showing they are still not ready.

What they are apparently not prepared to allow debate about is any change to the Constitution. That "Voice to Parliament" is not the simple measure they claim it to be.  I am seeking advice from my indigenous friends as well as the constitutional experts about that one.