Don’t ask me how, but Peter Brent at Mumble seems to have the scoop on Newspoll. Labor’s lead is up slightly on a fortnight ago, from 55-45 to 56-44. Better news for them still on the primary vote, up four points to 46 per cent with the Coalition down one to 34 per cent. Despite this, Kevin Rudd has recorded his weakest personal ratings since October, his approval down six points to 58 per cent and his disapproval up five to 31 per cent. Malcolm Turnbull’s position has improved, his approval up four points to 40 per cent and his disapproval down three to 42 per cent. Kevin Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister has narrowed from 64-19 to 58-24.
All I could see when I read the story @ 1446 was the ridiculous and unnecessary apostrophe in the word “Liberal’s”.
Again, why is this story cropping up now? This has been happening for decades.
MPs have to have absolute faith in the discretion of their staff and trust their judgement.
But it’s never a good look…
[Again, why is this story cropping up now? This has been happening for decades.]
Because of the UK
Just like the swine flu, the MSM are not happy untill we have our own scandal.
Itep
[It should be up to individual members or senators to decide who they wish to employ, whether that be a family member or someone else.]
Not if they are paid by the taxpayer either directly under the MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (STAFF) ACT and/or through electoral allowances.
Where public money is involved, the ethical issue is exacatly the same as it is for ministers’ staff as outlined in the Guideline, so why shouldn’t the rule for ministers extend to all members? The principle is exactly the same. Electorate staff are servants of the parliament as are ministerial staff.
It’s a rort. If it’s OK, why are MPs allowed to do it but Ministers not allowed to?
[Again, why is this story cropping up now? This has been happening for decades.]
[MPs should be forced to hand back any of their electoral allowance they do not spend instead of absorbing it into their salary, Greens leader Bob Brown says.
Despite a freeze on MPs’ salaries for at least 15 months, the Remuneration Tribunal recently increased their electoral allowances by $90 a week to $32,000. ]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/21/2576849.htm
Its the eeviiiil one’s I tells ya
😉
Are some of you seriously saying this isn’t nepotism? I’ll provide the definition of “nepotism”.
[Nepotism is the showing of favoritism for relatives or friends based upon that relationship, rather than on an objective evaluation of ability or suitability. For instance, offering employment to a relative, despite the fact that there are others who are better qualified and willing to perform the job.]
These people are clearly being employed because of their relationship, rather than their ability.
[Just like the swine flu, the MSM are not happy untill we have our own scandal.]
betcha they dont run with this one
[A major investigation into child abuse at Catholic orphanages, reformatories and schools in Ireland has found that beatings, sexual abuse and humiliation were endemic.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/21/2576569.htm
Gusface
[Its the eeviiiil one’s I tells ya]
As reluctant as I am to point this out, Mr Apostrophe would be forced to take issue with not one, but two apostrophe howlers in your seven word sentence.
[Again, why is this story cropping up now? This has been happening for decades.]
That does not make the practice correct. It’s like saying “We’ve been burning witches for ages. Why are people complaining now?”
There is a famous rule of corruption “The concerning thing is not what is illegal; it’s what is legal.”
[It’s a rort. If it’s OK, why are MPs allowed to do it but Ministers not allowed to?]
There are guidelines that ministers agree to abide by before becoming ministers. One of these guidelines is not to employ family members as staff.
Rudd really can’t direct members of other parties to not employ family members as hiring and firing decisions are completely up to the individual members. He could issue a directive to all ALP members I suppose.
I know what nepotism is, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that members of staff for politicians are not public servants. As such, the employment requirements are much the same as in the private sector.
Diogs,
I say it’s all a ridiculous beat up. Politicians should be entitled to employ whomever they believe will best serve them best in their political office.
I know you always think the worst of of people. But, really, how far do you take these incursions into the discretion of the Politicians.
I’d rather assume they’re honest and wait for proof to the contrary.
This is the relevant bit from the Ministerial Ethic doscument:
[2.18. Ministers’ close relatives and partners are not to be appointed to positions in their ministerial or electorate offices, and must not be employed in the offices of other members of the Executive Government without the Prime Minister’s express approval.]
Clearly the same ethical consideration applies to all members – it specifically includes staff in ‘electorate offices’. It mostly surely is an affront to ethical behaviour – and a rort – for members not to act in line with that principle.
Also, if a politician chooses to employ their wife and their wife is not capable of serving them better than someone else then they need to live with the consequences of it.
It’s not as if they employ their wife on top of another person, they employ their wife in place of another person.
Not much is required to run an Electorate office. Just take messages and organise appointments.
Itep
The issue arises from the funding of the staff by the taxpayer.
If an ALP member was to disregard the ethical rule, and employed a family member, and then became a minister, they would have to sack the family member because of the rule. How ludicrous is that? “Sorry love, you’ll have to go – ethics didn’t apply before but now they do.”
It seems ethical conduct is a difficult concept for some.
[Not much is required to run an Electorate office. Just take messages and organise appointments.]
Rubbish,
Not only that, there is writing of letters to other MP’s Constituents, Doing research, organising Electorate Functions such as Morning and Afternoon Teas etc.
The list is endless.
jaundiced view, who are you proposing should fund MPs staff then?
[If an ALP member was to disregard the ethical rule, and employed a family member, and then became a minister, they would have to sack the family member because of the rule. How ludicrous is that? “Sorry love, you’ll have to go – ethics didn’t apply before but now they do.”]
I’d imagine they would find some way to work around it or shuffle the staff member off to someone elses’ office in the same faction. It’s really just spin.
JV,
Keep practicing. I’m sure you’ll learn.
[It seems ethical conduct is a difficult concept for some.]
No, they just don’t agree with the statement that it is unethical to employ a family member in your business. Nor, would it appear, a large percentage of the private sector.
[I’d imagine they would find some way to work around it or shuffle the staff member off to someone elses’ office in the same faction. It’s really just spin.]
And I wonder if our friends in the oh so pure Greens also employ spouse’s relatives in their Elctorates ?
If so, Pots & Kettles.
[No, they just don’t agree with the statement that it is unethical to employ a family member in your business. Nor, would it appear, a large percentage of the private sector.]
If we apply the oh so pure’s logic to the letter of the law, it would be illegal to run Family Businesses which employ Famly and relatives.
[Not only that, there is writing of letters to other MP’s Constituents, Doing research, organising Electorate Functions such as Morning and Afternoon Teas etc.
The list is endless.]
Frank I agree
Also of note is that the electorate office people deal witha lot of advice based queries
ie where is such and such, who do i see for xyz.
It can also be a very emotional job, so I dont think its importance should be dismissed
Utlimately they are the members “shopfront” and as such I believe a member has the right to whoever they want
ltep
It is still nepotism whether they are public servants or not. If I employed a relative in my rooms, it would be nepotism. The fact that the tax-payer is paying their salary makes it even worse.
You could put it in a dictionary under the definition of nepotism. And I’m paying for it.
If a partner is quite capable of running an Electorate office, why should they be discriminated against holding that position. If everything is above board we have nothing to worry about.
[ Muskiemp
Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009 at 1:07 pm | Permalink
Yes, but the Bill was not defeated. He only ever crossed when the Government had the numbers, Barnaby never crossed the floor to defeat a Bill.]
Muskiekemp, the point is that he supported the retention of VSU. He is now stating that he opposes a return to VSU as it was when he supported it.
Tom.
[It is still nepotism whether they are public servants or not. If I employed a relative in my rooms, it would be nepotism. The fact that the tax-payer is paying their salary makes it even worse.]
So by your defintion, Businesses which have & son would be regarded as Nepotism then ?
Yes but you’d be paying for it regardless of who was being employed. What’s to say a family member is of any less use than any other person a member or senator may choose to employ?
Are we arguing members and senators shouldn’t have discretion in who to hire and fire? There should be some independent appointments process?
Itep
[who are you proposing should fund MPs staff then?]
I’m not suggesting public funding of the staff should change – I’m suggesting that where public funds are involved members must act ethically where they have control over the disbursement of those funds. That is not the case by definition if their decision gives public funds to a family member. it’s not too hard a concept – the Ministerial Guideline explains it well, and the principle applies to all members.
It’s the same principle as a minister/member unilaterally awarding a contract to a family member to supply the government/electorate office with widgets. Surely you don’t think that is on.
It’s not mandatory, it’ a matter of choice. I am sure there would be some partners who would not want to near the place.
OK Tom @ 1478 I see what you mean. Anyway he is always all over the place, sometimes I believe Barnaby himself doesn’t know which way he is heading.
ltep
They should choose the best qualified person for the job, who is seldom going to be their daughter. Why should constituents get substandard service from an electoral office because the pollie has put their wife and daughter in charge? The constituents are paying for the service through their taxes.
Frank
When there is a father and son political party, the answer will be yes.
I’ve worked in an electorate office. I remember being crushed at how easily the 15 year old work experience student picked up my job!
Folks, electorate officers are one of the most lowly paid members of the workforce. When I was working there (part time) the full time staff were on $32 000, with no overtime. That was in 2001, so it won’t have increased much.
The casual rate was $19 an hour.
I know that we had a strike for better pay and everyone was gobsmacked because the union hadn’t called a strike for decades, given that most staff were working there more out of a sense of civic duty than for material gain.
I left when I was offered a job which paid more for 3 months work than I earnt in the previous year.
We did occasionally employ the member’s daughter to answer phones, basically because we were desperate (you’d have to be, she wasn’t that bright) and noone else would do it for the money.
Muskiemp
[If a partner is quite capable of running an Electorate office, why should they be discriminated against holding that position. If everything is above board we have nothing to worry about.]
Gee, where do we start with that mess. Perhaps with the concept of discrimination. The reason they are ‘discriminated against’ is that ethical standards preclude a member from directing public funds to a family member. In some instances, as in NSW, this can be a criminal offence as well as unethical.
Exactly the same principle was involved with the many NSW State Rail employees who have been found to be corrupt by awarding lucrative contracts to their family or friends and sharing in the profit from the public monies paid out.
By your standards the ICAC might have said about that: “If a family member or friend is quite capable of doing earthworks for State Rail, why should they be discriminated against getting the contract?”
Oh and yes the jobs were advertised but noone but party hacks were interested in working for us due to the poor pay and conditions.
[They should choose the best qualified person for the job, who is seldom going to be their daughter. Why should constituents get substandard service from an electoral office because the pollie has put their wife and daughter in charge? The constituents are paying for the service through their taxes.]
This is a separate issue altogether from employing family members. Now you seem to be arguing that there should be some merit process in selecting politicians’ staff, which is what happens in the public service.
Are you arguing there should be an independent appointment process for MPs staff or should members have the hiring and firing powers of those in the private sector?
jv
no, although paid through the Vic Parliament, electorate officers are regarded as employees of the member, not of the Parliament.
Thus you could be sacked at the whim of the member with no redress.
The parliamentarian has to have absolute trust in their electoral staff, I can’t stress that enough.
And believe me, the job has few attractions.
[Folks, electorate officers are one of the most lowly paid members of the workforce. When I was working there (part time) the full time staff were on $32 000, with no overtime. That was in 2001, so it won’t have increased much.]
And it ain’t a 9 to 5 job either, especially if you’re organising functions in the evening and you have to help set up and clean up afterwards.
[The parliamentarian has to have absolute trust in their electoral staff, I can’t stress that enough. ]
Hear Hear
ltep
There certainly shouldn’t be an independent process. The pollie should employ someone in the same way 99.9% of the population does (and it seems Ministers do) which is based on an interview, CV and referees. And I think merit should be the sole standard, not family or friend relationship. If the jobs are so crappy and underpaid that only a family relative wants it, I’m more than happy for them to take it.
[The parliamentarian has to have absolute trust in their electoral staff, I can’t stress that enough. ]
If we tool jv’s example of merit based emplyment, you would have the silly, if not dangerous situation of a Labor MP being forced to emply a staffer who is a member of the Liberal Party – can you imaginne the outcry if said stafffer who had access to politically sensitve information leaked said information to the opposition ?
[There certainly shouldn’t be an independent process. The pollie should employ someone in the same way 99.9% of the population does (and it seems Ministers do) which is based on an interview, CV and referees. And I think merit should be the sole standard, not family or friend relationship. If the jobs are so crappy and underpaid that only a family relative wants it, I’m more than happy for them to take it.]
And if the family member meets the critera you suggest ?
There will always be more nepotism under Family First
[There certainly shouldn’t be an independent process. The pollie should employ someone in the same way 99.9% of the population does (and it seems Ministers do) which is based on an interview, CV and referees. And I think merit should be the sole standard, not family or friend relationship. If the jobs are so crappy and underpaid that only a family relative wants it, I’m more than happy for them to take it.]
Yes, but if you look at the private sector, who ultimately decides who to employ? What consequences are there if they employ the candidate not ‘most qualified’ for the position?
I’d say your 99.9% figure is not correct either.
If we’re really going to this level then I suppose you’re precluding a member from choosing staff from their own faction or union as well?
Also, who independently assess the employment process of the private sector?
Diogenes,
The reason that Government costs so much and that progress is so slow is because people like you are always trying to impose impossible standards on those who decide
to participate in the electoral process.
You’d rather nitpick on a point of obtuse logic than just let people get on with the job.
Your arbitary moral outrage is so much cobblers.
[There will always be more nepotism under Family First]
They could have the father, the son and the holy ghost on their books
🙂
[Young Liberals ‘hot babes’ recruitment drive draws criticism from Pru Goward]
http://livenews.com.au/feature/young-liberals-hot-babes-recruitment-drive-draws-criticism-from-pru-goward/2009/5/21/207285
You can just tell from the gallery that all the girls were born to toffy Liberal parents.