 |
| The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 March 2024 |
Showing posts with label #ScottMorrisonFAIL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #ScottMorrisonFAIL. Show all posts
Saturday, 16 March 2024
Saturday, 5 August 2023
Cartoons of the Week
A tale of two former leaders
Scott John Morrison & Donald John Trump at the height of their political careers before the fall into public disgrace and infamy
 |
| Getty Image circa Sept. 2019 As both men are seen in Australia in July 2023 |
 |
| Blameless Cathy Wilcox |
 |
| In a pickle Jon Shakespeare |
Wednesday, 2 August 2023
In which Liberal backbencher & MP for Cook Scott Morrison once again seeks to rewrite his history over that period in which he was first Minister for Social Services, then Treasurer and finally Prime Minister of Australia
The following is a video of Scott John Morrison's Members Statement of 31 July 2023 on the floor of the Australian House of Representatives......
Video supplied
During his Member's Statement (Hansard 31.07.23 at 16:10, p.83) Morrison asserted in part:
- “I do, however, completely reject the commission's adverse findings in the published report regarding my own role as Minister for Social Services between December 2014 and September 2015 as disproportionate, wrong, unsubstantiated and contradicted by clear evidence presented to the commission. As Minister for Social Services I played no role and had no responsibility in the operation or administration of the robodebt scheme.”
- “In relation to the commission's finding regarding untrue evidence, I also reject this as unsubstantiated, speculative, and wrong.”
- “Finally, the commission's allegation that pressure was applied to department officials that prevented their giving frank advice is wrong, unsubstantiated and absurd….How could I have pressured officials into developing such proposals while serving in another portfolio?”
- “Throughout my service in numerous portfolios over almost nine years I enjoyed positive, respectful and professional relationships with Public Service officials at all times, and there is no evidence before the commission to the contrary. While acknowledging the regrettable—again, the regrettable—unintended consequences and impacts of the scheme on individuals and families, I do however completely reject each of the adverse findings against me in the commission's report as unfounded and wrong.”
- “The latest attacks on my character by the government in relation to this report is just a further attempt by the government following my departure from office to discredit me and my service to our country during one of the most difficult periods our country has faced since the Second World War. This campaign of political lynching has once again included the weaponisation of a quasi-legal process to launder the government's political vindictiveness. They need to move on.”
This is the second time Scott Morrison has risen to his feet in
the House of Representatives to self-servingly defend his
personal politically indefensible actions.
That first time he was defending the fact that as then Prime Minister of Australia (24.8.2018 to 23.5.2022) and Minister for the Public Service (29.5.2019 to 8.10.2021) he secretly appointed himself to five additional key ministries, beginning this portfolio grab in March 2020:
- Minister for Health from 14.3.2020 to 23.5.2022;
- Minister for Finance from 30.3.2020 to 23.5.2022;
- Minister for Industry, Science, Energy and Resources from 15.4.2021 to 23.5.2022;
- Minister for Home Affairs from 6.5.2021 to 23.5.2022; and
- Treasurer from 6.5.2021 to 23.5.2022.
Bringing the total number of portfolios he had full governance over - if he wished to exercise this power - to seven by 7 October 2021 and six thereafter.
Covert actions which on completion of a formal independent inquiry by Honourable Virginia Bell AC which found:
"As the Solicitor-General concluded, the principles of responsible government were “fundamentally undermined” because Mr Morrison was not “responsible” to the Parliament, and through the Parliament to the electors, for the departments he was appointed to administer.
Finally, the lack of disclosure of the appointments to the public was apt to undermine public confidence in government. Once the appointments became known, the secrecy with which they had been surrounded was corrosive of trust in government."
caused the House of Representatives on 31 November 2022
by a vote of 80 to 56 to censure him with these words:
“Therefore [the house] censures the member for Cook for failing to disclose the appointments to the House of Representatives, the Australian people and the cabinet, which undermined responsible government and eroded public trust in Australia’s democracy.”
At the moment he rose to his feet to make his 31 July 2023 statement to the House the Liberal MP for Cook appeared literally friendless, with very few members of parliament remaining in or returning to the Chamber to hear him speak.
 |
| IMAGE: Snapshot via @Terrytoo69, Twitter, 1 August 2023 However, lest anyone imagine Scott Morrison deserves pity, I give the last words in this post to..... |
Mr Morrison, you are a bottomless well of self-pity with not a drop of mercy for all the real victims of Robodebt pic.twitter.com/tdDiK6O6TK
— Bill Shorten (@billshortenmp) August 1, 2023
Saturday, 17 December 2022
Quote of the Week
“I watched former-prime-minister-and-still-a-dick, Scott Morrison, testify before the Royal Commission into the robodebt affair, and it is fair to say my opinion of him was not enhanced. He was rude, dismissive, misleading, smug, and fifty shades of oh-my-god-just-shut-the-fuck-up, and although he did his best to avoid answering questions directly, he nonetheless provided ample evidence of the wisdom Australian voters displayed in removing him from office on 21 May 2022 (and destroying his party for good measure)." [Tim Dunlop writing in The Future of Everything blog, 15 December 2022]
Tuesday, 15 November 2022
Another time bomb left behind by a politically & fiscally incompetent current member of the World Wide Speakers Group and sometime Liberal MP for Cook, Scott John Morrison
 |
| Then Prime Minster Scott Morrison & Treasurer Josh Frydenberg - political mates and housemates before the Liberal-Nationals Coalition sank the ship of state. IMAGE: The Australian, 26 August 2020 |
On 5 July 2018 then Australian Treasurer & Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison unveiled his plan to overhaul the Goods & Services Tax (GST) state distribution scheme.
By 12 November 2018 the Australian Coalition Government now lead by Prime Minister Morrison introduced Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018 which was duly passed by Parliament and became law on 29 November 2018.
On 25 February 2019 Treasurer John Frydenberg put his signature to this contentious document.
Thus a political and fiscal time bomb with a relatively long fuse was activated…...
The Age, 14 November 2022, p.3:
A deal put in place to placate Western Australia when its share of GST revenue was tumbling is on track to cost the nation's taxpayers 10 times more than forecast, helping drive up federal government debt and interest payments to record levels.
Originally pulled together by then-treasurer Scott Morrison in 2018 before being put through parliament by his successor, Josh Frydenberg, the deal that expected to cost $2.3 billion is now on track to cost more than $24 billion. [my yellow highlighting]
WA, which delivered four seats to Labor at the May election on the back of a 10.6 per cent swing, is vowing to fight to keep the arrangement, due to expire in 2026-27.
Morrison struck the deal at a time when WA's share of the tax pool had fallen to an all-time low of 30 cents for every dollar of GST raised within the state. Its iron ore royalties were effectively being redistributed among the other states and territories based on a Commonwealth Grants Commission formula that takes into account each state's revenue sources and expenses.
Under Morrison's deal, from 2022-23 WA must receive a minimum of 70 cents in the dollar before increasing to 75 cents in 2024-25. When the policy was put in place, it was expected iron ore prices would fall and WA's share of the GST pool would therefore rise. Instead, prices have soared.
The Morrison government ensured other states and territories wouldn't be worse off, which requires the top-up funding for the deal to come from outside the $82.5 billion GST pool.
It was originally forecast to cost federal taxpayers $2.3 billion over three years, including just $293 million in 2021-22, but the surge in iron ore prices has meant more top-ups and for longer.
The October budget revealed that last year, the deal cost $2.1 billion and is forecast to jump to $4.2 billion this financial year. By 2025-26, the cost of the entire deal is on track to reach $22.5 billion, with another $2-3 billion likely the year after that.
Throughout the entire period, the budget is expected to be in deficit, forcing the extra cash to be borrowed. In percentage terms, the blowout in cost is larger than the NDIS, aged care, health or defence.
Independent economist Chris Richardson said the deal had been ill-conceived from the beginning with the cost to be borne by future taxpayers.
He said all significant spending programs needed to be properly assessed, including the GST deal.
"Yes, the politics of it are difficult. But we have a whole host of other issues, like the NDIS, and the economics of them have to be dealt with," he said…….
The extra borrowing for the GST deal has contributed to the lift in gross debt, which on Friday reached a record $909.4 billion.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the cost of servicing the debt was getting more expensive and was the budget's fastest-growing expense. [my yellow highlighting]
Friday, 4 November 2022
Evidence before the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme hints at possibility Scott Morrison knew that the infamous Robodebt scheme was unsupported by social security legislation & regulations and therefore unlawful
Scott John Morrison the current Liberal MP for Cook sits on the Opposition benches in the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament, holds no parliamentary party positions and sits on no parliamentary committees.
As Minister for Social Services from 23 December 2014 to 21 September 2015, Treasurer from 21 September 2015 to 28 August 2018 and Prime Minister from 24 August 2018 to 23 May 2022, Morrison had considerable influence on the creation and implementation of social security policy and programs.
Including the infamous and unlawful ‘Robodebt’ debt recovery scheme which appears to have its genesis during his time as Minister for Social Services and Marise Payne’s time as Minister for Human Services in the Abbott Government.
Christian Porter followed Morrison as Minister for Social Services from 21 September 2015 to 20 December 2017, Stuart Robert followed Payne as Minister for Human Services from 21 September 2015 to 18 February 2016 and later becoming Minister for Government Services from 29 May 2019 to 30 February 2021 responsible for Services Australia, while Alan Tudge was Robert’s Assistant Minister for Social Services from 30 September 2015 to 18 February 2016 and then Minister for Human Services from 18 February 2016 to 20 December 2017, thus all three men had a hand in refining and implementing the punitive horror that was Robodebt as envisioned by Morrison and Payne.
Approximate tenures of assorted departmental heads during the period December 2014 to December 2021:
- Secretary of Dept. of Social Services -
Finn Pratt (18 December 2013 to 18 September 2018)
Kathryn Campbell (18 September 2018 to 22 July 2021)
Raymond Griggs (22 July 2021 to present day)
- Secretary of Department of Human Services -
Finn Pratt (September 2009 to 7 March 2011)
Kathryn Campbell (7 March 2011 to 17 September 2017)
Carolyn Edwards, Acting Secretary, Department of Human Services (September 2017)
Renée Leon (18 September 2017 to 16 March 2020)
Name change to Services Australia -
Chief Executive Officer Rebecca Skinner (16 March 2020 to present day)
The commencement of successful legal actions, in an individual filing by a person who received a debt recovery notice and a class action on behalf of a group of persons receiving Centrelink pensions, benefits or allowances who had received debt notices, saw the Morrison Government end the Robodebt scheme.
The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme was established on 18 August 2022 and commenced its public hearings into the circumstances surrounding this scheme on 22 September 2022.
In particular the Royal Commission is seeking information with regard to the following matters:
who was responsible for the scheme’s design, development and establishment
why it was considered necessary or desirable
any advice or processes that informed its design or implementation
any concerns raised about its legality or fairness
the use of third party debt collectors under the Robodebt scheme
concerns raised following the implementation of the Robodebt scheme. In particular;
how risks were identified, assessed and managed in response to concerns raised
the systems, processes or arrangements in place to handle complaints about the Robodebt scheme
whether complaints were handled in accordance with those systems, processes or arrangements
whether complaints were handled fairly
how the Australian Government responded to legal challenges, including decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
when the Australian Government knew, or ought to have known that debts were not, or may not have been, validly raised
whether the Australian Government sought to prevent, inhibit or discourage scrutiny of the Robodebt scheme
the intended or actual outcomes of the Robodebt scheme including;
the impacts that the scheme had on individuals and families
the costs of implementing, administering, suspending and winding back the scheme, including associated costs such as obtaining advice and legal costs.
On Monday 31 October 2022 the Royal Commission published Exhibit 1-0001 - CTH.2013.0012.5070_R - Advice prepared by Solicitor General to AGS re use of apportioned ATO PAYG data which in my opinion clearly shows that a competent Prime Minister, Minister for Social Services, Minister for Human Services, any other relevant ministers and their department heads should have been aware or were aware that the Robodebt debt recovery scheme that had been in operation since April 2015 was at best legally fraught and at worst unlawful in all or part of its design, implementation and compliance measures. That this situation was being discussed at some level during 2015 and 2016 and was widely known by August-September 2018.
From 24 September 2019 there was a 46-page legal opinion to that effect — written by the Solicitor-General Stephen Donahue QC, Nicholas Owens SC and barrister Zoe Maud — available to then Prime Minister Morrison, relevant ministers and department heads.
At its 31 October hearing the Royal Commission heard evidence from Victoria Legal Aid and two women who made ‘debtors’ by the Robodebt scheme.
The 1 November hearing heard evidence from:
Principal Lawyer, Department of Social Services; and
Former Assistant Director, Payment Review and Debt Strategy Team, Social Security Performance and Analysis Branch Department of Social Services.
At the 2 November hearing evidence was heard from:
Group Manager, Redress Group, Department of Social Services;
Former General Counsel, Programme Advice and Privacy
Department of Social Services; and
Former Director of Payment Integrity and Debt Management
Department of Social Services.
Over the course of 1 and 2 November hearing days it became clear that government departmental awareness of the probability of a lack of legislative support for and flaws in the Robodebt scheme preceded that of the general public.
Matters revealed in evidence should become quite interesting in coming days, weeks and months.
The full witness list for the period 31 October to 4 November 2022 can be found at: https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2022-11/witness-list-31-october-2022.pdf
Hearing transcripts for 2 to 4 November 2022 can be found at:
https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/hearings
A mainstream media perspective…….
ABC News, 2 November 2014:
...The commission, being held in Brisbane, has been hearing evidence from public servants involved in formulating the earliest legal and policy advice about the bungled Robodebt scheme that wrongly claimed hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients owed debts to Centrelink through a process of income averaging.
Counsel assisting the commission Justin Greggery KC questioned Social Services Department lawyer Anne Pulford about external legal advice the department obtained in August 2018 that raised concerns about income averaging by scheme.
The advice was sought after a decision was handed down in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal relating to Robodebt.
Mr Greggery drew Ms Pulford's attention to email comments from government lawyers about the external advice including one describing it as "somewhat unhelpful" and another which stated: "They might be able to rework the advice if this causes catastrophic issues for us but there is not a lot of room for them to do so."
He asked Ms Pulford if she appreciated "that, at that point, the department had in its possession an external legal advice which said the Robodebt scheme was not lawfully sustainable".
Ms Pulford said she didn't recall the details of the advice but presumed she did appreciate the significance.
Mr Greggery drew Ms Pulford's attention to an email she sent, noting the income-averaging approach was not supported.
"You are signalling there that this advice if accepted means the end of the Robodebt scheme," he said.
Ms Pulford said she did not recall what she was trying to signal by the words.
Under questioning from Mr Greggery, Ms Pulford said that, from information she had seen, the external legal advice was not converted beyond a draft advice form.
She said that, if an external advice was not formalised beyond a draft, then it was "treated as not representing the departmental preferred view and arguable still open to discussion or comment or potential revision".
The reference prompted Commissioner Holmes to ask if, when the department received unfavourable advice, was it "just left that way and then never represents anything that you deal with, is that the approach?"
Ms Pulford replied that the scenario occurred "regularly" and it happened many times "that I had seen it".
Commissioner Holmes responded by saying: "I'm appalled".
Asked by Mr Greggery who would have made the decision about leaving the legal advice as a draft, Ms Pulford said the decision-making within the policy area was a matter for the internal organisation.
"I couldn't necessarily comment on saying whether that would have been if such a decision were made, it would be necessarily made at director level or at a different level,'' she said.
The commission has previously been given evidence that Ms Pulford was co-counsel on legal advice formulated by her team in 2014, which indicated the then-proposed scheme was illegal. [my yellow highlighting]
Inquiry shown emails relating to draft brief prepared for Scott Morrison
Earlier on Wednesday, the inquiry was told lawyers in Ms Pulford's section appeared to come under pressure later — when the scheme was being formulated — from then-social services minister, Scott Morrison, in relation to providing advice so it could be submitted to the Finance Department.
The inquiry was told lawyers in Ms Pulford's team provided more advice in 2015 because the Department of Human Services was advised that "Mr Morrison indicated he wants a number of potential proposals in an attached briefing [to] be brought forward for portfolio budget statements".
Ms Pulford agreed with counsel assisting Justin Greggery KC: "That it appeared pressure was coming from a clearance by minister Morrison to have a new policy proposal developed to the point where it might be submitted to the Department of Finance".
She agreed the advice was being sought in relation to proposals, such as the capability to detect, investigate and prosecute suspected fraud and noncompliance in the context of social welfare payments.
They also included the "utilisation of new technology to increase data analytics, complex network analysis and geospatial analysis and establishing a capability for real-time monitoring and risk-profiling".
The inquiry was shown internal emails between lawyers within the Social Services Department in 2015 relating to a draft brief being prepared for Mr Morrison.
Those emails referred to Mr Morrison requesting the Human Services Department "bring forward proposals to strengthen the integrity of the welfare system".
The emails went on to say the social security performance and analysis branch had provided comments highlighting the need for legislative change as well as the shift away from underlying principles of social security law.
Under questioning from Mr Greggery, Ms Pulford acknowledged the emails were seeking advice about what legislative changes were needed to get the proposal up and running.
Other emails revealed the need to provide preliminary advice to the Finance Department within just two days — a timeline that Ms Pulford agreed was "short".
The Guardian, 3 November 2022:
Plans for what became the robodebt scheme “almost immediately” concerned policy advisers at the Department of Social Services and were viewed by one official as “unethical”, a royal commission has been told.
Cameron Brown, a former director of payment integrity and debt management at the Department of Social Services (DSS), said he was responsible for seeking advice on the policy idea from its internal legal team in late 2014. [my yellow highlighting]
That was in response to a proposal from the Department of Human Services to use “income averaging” to raise welfare debts – the central plank of what became the ill-fated robodebt scheme.
At the time the DSS led the development of social policy while the Department of Human Services was responsible for administering services such as Centrelink, including welfare debt recovery.
It remains unclear whether this damning legal advice was shared with the Department of Human Services, which was responsible for the plan.
Brown said he and his team were “almost immediately” concerned about the “unethical” debt recovery proposal.
Brown compared the proposal to the so-called Dallas Buyers Club “speculative invoicing” saga in which copyright holders sent legal demands to alleged downloaders of the 2013 film for large amounts of money in the hope they would settle. [my yellow highlighting]
He noted many of the people targeted by robodebt were vulnerable and the “onus of proof” was unreasonable given much of the pay information they would need to source went back years…..
Read the full article here.
Thursday, 20 October 2022
How in late 2021 then Prime Minister #ScottyFromMarketing Morrison spent $220,296 his government couldn't afford on a BOM logo change & creating 9 new Twitter handles
In this case Morrison was helped along by his then minister for the environment Sussan Ley, now ensconced as Deputy Leader of the Opposition and probably hoping no-one remembers that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) was in her ministerial portfolio when this downright silly decision was made.
The Bureau of Meteorology no longer wants to be called "the BoM" pic.twitter.com/C7dhN2e51L
— @MartySilk (@MartySilkHack) October 17, 2022
The Guardian, 19 October 2022:
Revealed: BoM rebranding and logo cost $220,000 as Plibersek shoots down weather bureau’s name change
The environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, has shot down the Bureau of Meteorology’s request for people not to call it “the BoM”, saying Australians should be free to call it whatever they like as the full cost of the rebrand has been revealed.
The BoM rebrand cost more than $220,000, including cash to update the organisation’s visual style and logo, conduct research, develop pull-up banners and support media engagement.
“My focus and the focus of the BoM should be on weather, not branding,” Plibersek said on Wednesday.
On Tuesday, the agency formerly known as the BoM asked media organisations to only refer to it by its full name, or shorthand as “the Bureau” – not the widely used initialism BoM. The media-wide alert sparked derision online after it was discovered that the Bureau appeared to have failed to reserve the Twitter accounts it had announced it planned to move to.
The letters BOM seen over a satellite view outline of Australia
Guardian Australia understands the change, detailed in an email bearing a new bureau logo, was part of a wider rebrand that commenced under the previous Coalition government and had been under way for some 18 months.
It was reported yesterday that a $69,300 contract had been awarded in September 2021 to Melbourne’s C Word Communications Agency for “branding of product naming services” and “brand implementation”.
The full cost of the rebranding exercise was $220,296.
Plibersek’s office said The C Word’s contract covered “communication and implementation planning support”. Another $118,177 was awarded to another agency, Era-Co, for brand strategy and design services, including visual style, brand position and logo, as well as research.
Another $32,819 was spent on “implementation costs” for the rebrand, including development of pull-up banners to support community engagement and media engagement for each state and territory, as well as design support to update collateral, systems and tools.
Era-Co was granted a $50,000 contract for “brand framework” for the Bureau of Meteorology, according to a notice published on the AusTender website in September 2020; then another $80,000 contract for “visual identity development”, according to a notice published in December 2020; and $17,820 for “design services”, in a notice published in August 2021.
The C Word’s $69,3000 contract for “brand implementation” was published September 2021.
“I have asked for the information about the full cost of the whole rebrand project, which was undertaken under the previous government,” Plibersek said.
“I’ve released that publicly. Now it’s time to let the Bureau of Meteorology get on with what it does best – predict the weather to help keep Australians safe.”
The environment minister said on Tuesday she did not “quite understand” why the bureau commenced a rebrand to update its name and logo, saying she was not focused on those factors during the severe flooding across much of the eastern seaboard. On Wednesday she appeared to rebuff the bureau’s calls to be referred to by another name.
“The Bureau of Meteorology, the BoM – Australians will make up their own minds about what they call it,” Plibersek said.
“What matters is accurate and timely weather information for communities, particularly during severe weather like we’re experiencing right now. That’s where my focus is. People are hurting.”…...
Several new Twitter handles proposed by the bureau, including @TheBureau_NSW and @TheBureau_AU, were quickly snapped up by ordinary users on Tuesday. A Bureau spokesperson said on Tuesday it was “working closely with Twitter to rectify this, in the meantime, all existing BOM Twitter handles remain active”.
By Wednesday, all those accounts were either suspended or free to use, having been vacated by the users who had parked on those handles…... [my yellow highlighting]
The Guardian, 18 October 2022:
The name change – which has been broadly ridiculed, and criticised for its rollout as many Australians face devastating floods – was, in part, driven by Jack Walden, according to insiders. Walden appears to have won the contract for the consultancy company, and been hired by the Bureau shortly afterwards.
In September 2021, the Bureau awarded a $69,300 contract to the C Word Communications Agency for “branding of product naming services and “brand implementation”.
C Word’s “chief communicator” until December 2021 was Jack Walden.
According to his LinkedIn profile, Walden started as senior manager, communications delivery at the Bureau in November 2021. The crossover in his employment dates has not been explained.
Guardian Australia understands the rebrand was broadly unpopular among existing staff, but that the Bureau insisted that not only it be implemented, but that staff only use the new terms.
One insider said they were made to use the new term, and another said they were treated “like naughty schoolchildren” if they slipped up and referred to the BoM instead.
Plibersek told Guardian Australia that “during this time of severe weather and flood disaster, I’m not focused on the name of the agency”.
“I am focused on making sure the Bureau of Meteorology is providing the most accurate and timely information to communities affected by floods,” she said.
“The rebrand commenced under the previous government for reasons I don’t quite understand.”……
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Absolute rookie mistake by the Bureau of Meteorology to announce what they were changing their Twitter handle to BEFORE they actually did it 😆 pic.twitter.com/O6kqpg2D6v
— Keelan (@I_am_da_BOM) October 18, 2022
@BOM_au Acronyms I frequently use when discussing serious issues on limited letter count Twitter : AM, PM, GMT, AEDT, NSW, ABC, SBS, CSIRO, EPA, AMA, ICAC, AFP, PMC, MP, NASA, UN, and of course BOM. Get used to it, Dr. Johnson! Your new Twitter handle will be 6 spaces too long.
— no_filter_Yamba (@no_filter_Yamba) October 19, 2022
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By late afternoon on Thursday 20 October 2022, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) had walked back on its rebranding demands.
The Sydney Morning Herald, 4:05 pm:
The Bureau of Meteorology has backed down on its planned rebranding, saying people can still refer to the weather agency as “the BoM” – or anything else they like.
The backflip follows the BoM’s announcement on Tuesday that it wanted media agencies to refer to it as “the Bureau” or its full name rather than “BoM”.....
following the subsequent public outcry and ridicule over the mooted move, the organisation said it would now stick with the BoM moniker.
“The community is welcome to refer to the Bureau in any way they wish, including referring to us as the BoM,” the spokesperson said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
