Let me see if I can explain this in ways that make the IPA happy.
- Sometimes governments set up bodies and institutions to ensure that they make decisions based on objective criteria so that they’re not influenced by political whims and they make decisions that are fair to everyone.
- Sometimes there is even legislation giving these bodies powers so that decisions are separated from the potential short-term considerations of politicians.
- Such bodies are unelected.
- It’s a democracy so politicians should have the power to over-ride unelected decision-makers.
- When the government does just that, it would be wrong to suggest that we’re doing so for political reasons. They are obviously just changing the criteria to something that they – as our elected representatives – are happier with.
- This new criteria is not politically motivated at all.
- However, exactly what the criteria is remains a secret because if people start understanding the rules, then they may make applications based on the new criteria and then we’d have to hand out more money and then there’d be problems because we need to be frugal or we won’t have a surplus.
- No, it’s got nothing to do with marginal seats and Bridget McKenzie’s colour-coded spreadsheet was just to ensure that there were an appropriate number of grants given to all electorates evenly and not just going to Liberal and National seats.
- All the projects were eligible.
- If you say that you think they weren’t, you’re some sort of sick pervert who wants to see girls changing in cars and behind the sheds.
- The Auditor-General said one thing, but Scott Morrison got his mate to do another report which is confidential and says that the other report isn’t very good because the Auditor-General is one of those unelected people who can be over-ruled which is what the new report said, and no, you can’t see it because apart from the bit about it all being Bridget McKenzie’s fault it’s confidential.
- Just to make it clear, these grants weren’t decided on political grounds. The minister looked at the applications and decided who was eligible based on the size of the font in the application and/or whether they used the word, “please”.
There I think that about sums it all up. Bridget’s gone and tomorrow there will be a new National leader.
Of course, by that, I don’t mean to suggest that Barnaby will topple Michael McWotsisname. Neither am I suggesting that there is a third contender that will do a Scott Morrison and is currently doing a ring around to say that they shouldn’t go back to Barnaby but if they stick with the current guy, they’ll be dead meat, so why not give me a go?
Perish the thought of another leadership change.
No, I just mean that another female leader in the form of the Deputy Leader of the Nationals has bitten the dust. But hey, let’s not mention the female thing here, eh? I’m sure that any male in the same position would have resigned.
And I’d just like to back up Scott Morrison and say that she has shown the highest integrity there. She’s maintained extremely high ministerial standards.
Of course, some of you are probably suggesting that standing down because you haven’t done everything perfectly isn’t really showing high standards and that you’d be better off by not breaching the standards in the first place. However, I do understand what Morrison means: Everyone is breaching the rules, but unlike the rest of his front bench she’d decided to stand down now that she’s been told to, unlike a couple of them who have simply told him to get stuffed.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!