Reuters Poll Trend is back in business, presumably resuming its old methods of providing a weighted aggregate of results from Newspoll, Morgan and ACNielsen. As such it tells us nothing we didn’t already know, but its trend line is a handy thing to have. The current finding combines three weeks of results and has Labor’s two-party lead at 56.6-43.4, down from 57.3-42.7 previously.
Couple of legal matters to attend to:
• A legal challenge is proceeding against Labor’s 74-vote win in the seat of Chatsworth at the March 21 Queensland election. The LNP cites incidents of double voting and a strong overall result for Labor on absent votes as evidence of fraud. I’ve got a hat waiting to be eaten if the challenge is upheld.
• Gary Clark, husband of the former Lindsay MP Jackie Kelly, has been given the maximum fine of $1100 and ordered to pay more than $2000 in costs for his role in the distribution of fake pamphlets purporting to be from the “Islamic Australia Federation” in the week before the federal election. The ABC reports Magistrate Geoff Bradd aptly observing it was “difficult to think of a worst case of breaching the electoral act”, for which the penalties would seem to need strengthening.
• Note posts below on the latest state Newspoll results for Western Australia and South Australia.
Oops edit that post above to read:
“I was pointing out that it was extremely unlikely that the greens didn’t spend the money in the states they represent.”
#49, the doktors (GPs, Specialists etc) are the biggest rip-off merchants of the public money.
Astrobleme 45
I disagree. If we do change it so it is their salary then why do we need guidelines on how it is spent?
Of course, there may be cases of soon-to-be-retiring MPs who close down their electorate offices and buy a holiday home in NZ with all their (larger) salary. So, to answer my own question and agree with you to some extent, their should be some required minimum service levels imposed on MP’s electorate offices.
OK, but how is it ethical to spend money intended for you to use servicing the State you represent on political activities in other States?
Surely Bob Brown doesn’t need parliament to advise him as to whether that’s ethical or not?
BTW, on prior discussion: yes, nepotism happens in electorate offices, but I do know it’s not seen as the ‘done thing’. I was asked to report how often the MP’s daughter worked there to party officers, because they were worried about the ethics of it. However, I did have to have and keep the absolute trust of my MP so couldn’t do that.
Dr Good
Why would it be their salary? I was suggesting making the allowance only usable for the electorate or else for charity. It would then never be salary.
Astrobleme, you’ve gone from a triple negative to a double negative and I’m still not sure I understand you.
Dr Good
No. The doctor gets paid by Medicare, the private health funds, gaps from his patients and bribes from the drug companies (just added that last one for fun). That’s his income.
The doctor pays his staff and insurance etc. That’s his expenses.
His staff aren’t paid “directly” by public funds. They are paid by the doctor.
The Media is preying for a UK style scandal – Bob Brown could not help himself. He waffled on AM, the only reason they interviewed him and the only reason he put out his stooopid press release was to try to invent a polly scandal. 😉
Astrobleme
an MP has a huge workload facing them. They can:
– use their allowance to employ somebody short term to do this work:
or
– do it themselves, staying up late etc, and keep the allowance saved.
Can’t see that, if they choose to do the latter, that’s unethical in any way.
It’s not like they get overtime.
So Dio, who pays the electorate office staff? Is it the MP from electoral office allowances or is it directly by public funds?
Zoomster
You are either deliberately confusing my words or you are unable to comprehend the previous discussion.
And of course you need to document what is and isn’t ethical.
Dio, I can back up what Dr. Good is saying about GPs employing family members as receptionists, more often, as practice managers. I can think of about 10 or so, straight off, without even trying, in our catchment area of about 400,000 people.
[I try not to rush to judgement on things, especially in areas where I have little or no expertise.]
I have a lot of experience in the practical application of ethical principles, and rathe rthan a ‘rush to judgment’ what I am doing is examining the issue in terms of the ethical question: “What ought to be done?”
I’m sorry but the ethical standard won’t stretch to accommodate the misuse of public funds just because electorate offices are familiar territory, and otherwise somehow inoffensive.
The ministerial guidelines are good public policy reflecting ethical principles. They were adopted by the government. I would have thought labor people would accept their leader’s approach on it.
someone suggested the government thinks they are worthless and only had them written as a sop to interfering journalists and, I presume, community do-gooders. If that’s the case then there are some other more hair-raising ethical questions.
If the ethical rules are correct – and they reflect general ethical standards of today – then they ethical part applies to all members, even if the ‘rule’ part only applies to ministers. Therefore, logic dictates the conclusion that it is unethical for members to use public funds to employ family members.
Zoomster
I know you don’t understand me, but that’s not really important.
Finns
[#49, the doktors (GPs, Specialists etc) are the biggest rip-off merchants of the public money.]
Fortunately, that is not the argument we are having. You no doubt saw that Mrs D agreed with you on that.
I saw that the eye specialists had the Medicare rebate for a cataract operation reduced from $800 to $400 and they are really sooky about it. They do 15 cataracts on a list often. They’re not getting a lot of sympathy from their colleagues. The sad thing is they will just pass the $400 they lose per operation to the patients as a gap.
And logic dictates that it is unethical to use funds intended to service your electorate to service other electorates, but apparently it’s cool when the Greens do it.
Zoomster
I am not arguing from an ethical viewpoint. That’s Diogenes.
I am arguing for a set of guidelines about what is and isn’t ok to spend the money on, and for it to be documented. It’s not that hard to understand.
Zoomster
“And logic dictates that it is unethical to use funds intended to service your electorate to service other electorates, but apparently it’s cool when the Greens do it.”
You’re some kind of spambot or something? You are arguing something that I didn’t say.
You just invent things and argue them with me, don’t you?
Astrobleme – can I point out that you made a post that didn’t make sense, containing a triple negative.
By the time I responded to it, you had posted again, rewording it so that it’s now a double negative.
I’m not blaming you – or me – but sometimes by the time a post appears, half a dozen other posts have come online, and it looks like you’re responding to something you haven’t actually read. (That’s complicated, I hope you follow it …that is, I’m responding to post 86, but by the time I post, my post is post 98 and there are posts in between from the person I responded to at 86. It then looks like I’m responding to a latter post).
It’s the double negative one I’m referring to, could you make it clearer please?
HSO
That is true and you’ll notice I didn’t say I agreed with it. I frankly thing it’s a rort too, although it’s their own money. It can be used as a tax dodge as well, eg pay your wife $30,000 which counts as a tax deduction at the high rate the doctor would pay, and the wife only pays it at a low rate.
Our practice has a “no partners” policy, which is actually our only business rule. It’s mainly due to having partners around stuffing things up, fighting with staff etc. It’s bad business practice.
Zoomster
This is pretty clear:
“I was pointing out that it was extremely unlikely that the greens didn’t spend the money in the states they represent.”
Or, it is extremely likely the Greens spend the money in the States they represent.
Dr Good
[So Dio, who pays the electorate office staff? Is it the MP from electoral office allowances or is it directly by public funds?]
The public money is given to the MP for the express purpose of a salary for a staffer.
68
Astrobleme, please don’t get insulting.
We’re victims of cross posting, that’s all.
I responded to what I thought you’d said, not having any way of knowing that meantime you’d retracted it.
I have asked you to clarify what you mean by the retracted post, so that I DON”T mis understand you.
Play nicely, please.
I realise it’s an honest mistake, but really I think you should be apologising.
My GP employs his wife, or maybe she employs him. They are both GPs working in the same practice. (Love that term 🙂 )
But the pharmacy next door pays their rent and maintains their patient records – there is a sliding door from the “medical centre” into the pharmacy. So Diog your phama joke may apply.
70
Diog, I don’t agree with it either, and have pointed out that (internally) neither does the party.
However, given the low salary, the need to trust staff absolutely and the difficulty getting staff in the first place, I think that in some cases it’s almost unavoidable.
So not ideal, not recommended, but sometimes there aren’t many options.
Diogenes, I can see good reasons, mainly from the point of view, of how things going horribly wrong from family conflict or business conflict or both, to not employ family in an electorate office, or anywhere.
Sits patiently while incredibly erudite post is held in moderation. 🙂
Zoomster
Very sorry, didn’t mean to cause you any grief.
[Or, it is extremely likely the Greens spend the money in the States they represent.]
So you think it’s extremely likely that every cent of Bob Brown’s senate allowance, in the days when he was the only Green senator in existence, went to running his electorate office in Tasmania?
Dio, I maintain that it is the same for medicare funds given to a GP. As you agree that is not all salary. Some of it is direct untaxed funds that will be used for the employment of practice managers etc. And it is common for relatives to be employed with it.
My other examples of companies and consultants using public funds to employ relatives are also very common (despite JV’s outrage).
So it would open a huge can of worms if we really had to have general guidelines about the spending of public funds, by subcontractors like MPs, GPs, consultants and any company on relatives.
78
Thanks, Astro.
Still suffering from sore throat and incredibly grumpy.
Hey, Diog, you owe me big time – any advice??
Zoomster
Yes.
You may not be aware but the Greens were quite fractured in the olden days. In fact the WA Greens only recently joined the Australian Greens. I am not sure of the fine details though.
Aarrghhh, Astro, I thought you said you’d read all my posts earlier…when I said this in earlier thread I was howled down!
The origins of the term ‘nepotism’ are interesting. It came from the Latin for’ nephew’ – the popes in the Middle Ages started bestowing succession on their nephews, having no children of their own -being themselves chaste.
But
[Pope Innocent XII issued the bull Romanum decet Pontificem in 1692. The papal bull prohibited popes in all times from bestowing estates, offices, or revenues on any relative, with the exception that one qualified relative (at most) could be made a Cardinal.]
So nepotism has been wrong in principle in the eyes of the establishment since 1692, but STILL party people here want to defend it. 🙂
[So nepotism has been wrong in principle in the eyes of the establishment since 1692, but STILL party people here want to defend it.]
Instead of nepotism, these days members of the Catholic Church conduct ‘anatomy lessons’:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25517914-29277,00.html
Does employing a relative automatically count as nepotism? What if they are, in fact, ably suited for the job? Noting that a political staffer requires certain unique attributes such as loyalty and close knowledge of a party’s policies and principles.
jv, not only party people but most businesses I know of.
It’s actually an interesting argument:
A plumber and his wife are equal partners in their business, and – though he does over 80% of the work – all profits from the business are split between them 50/50.
This lessens their tax liability considerably, compared either to the plumber declaring 100% of the profit or 80% as income.
Technically, then, this nepotistic arrangement is funded (at least in part) by the taxpayer, as tax foregone makes up part of the monies received by the plumber and his wife.
Surely the plumber is using nepotism as a way of lining his pocket? Where’s the public outrage? yet this situation occurs in almost every business I can think of locally.
…and I’d be willing to be that my hypothetical plumber, reading in the daily paper about MPs employing spouses, is shaking his head and wondering why politicians are allowed to get away with it….
(Well, I know he is, because I made him up, but you get what I mean…)
British cabinet is considering a wide range of constitutional reforms in the wake of the MP’s expenses scandal.
[What the modernisers inside the cabinet want on the agenda is:
• A referendum on electoral reform for the House of Commons.
• An elected upper house.
• Spending caps on donations to political parties.
• A widening of the base from which candidates are drawn.
However, some senior cabinet figures argue a more radical agenda should be deferred for Labour’s general election manifesto, and are sceptical that broader constitutional reform, including changes to the electoral system, will address public anger over expenses. There are also fears a big initiative would divert from the priorities of the recession and public services.]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/20/gordon-brown-parliament-constitutional-reform
I was thinking about this the other day, actually, and I was wondering how different the British (and even European) social and political landscape would have been in the 30’s and 40’s had they had preferential voting as opposed to FPP. Mainly because of the various left-wing parties that splintered the vote. However, I haven’t really looked at results from that period enough to suggest things would be radically different.
[Instead of nepotism, these days members of the Catholic Church conduct ‘anatomy lessons’:]
Yes, ShowsOn, charming aren’t they – but at least they’re chaste. 😕
[A plumber and his wife are equal partners in their business, and – though he does over 80% of the work – all profits from the business are split between them 50/50.]
That’s a different category of rort I reckon – still a rort though. But it doesn’t really have the characteristics of classic nepotism. Of course, both are unethical, even if the tax minimisation rort is allowed by law.
[but at least they’re chaste.]
Yes very chaste.
In Ireland they had a nine year investigation, here we got a nine second mea culpa, but think of all the good they have done.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/21/2577458.htm?section=justin
Wonder if the earth moved for those poor kiddies.
[still a rort though.]
Could a pollie employee their partner and other family members and pay them more than their electoral allowance and claim the difference as a tax deduction. Effectively income splitting?, which normal taxpayers cannot do.
I wonder what Baldwin does with his electoral allowance because a lot of the glossy stuff he sends to us is paid for and authorised by Bill Heffernan.
Heffernan lives the other side of the GDV to this electorate. Do other Senators do the same.
Correct me if I am wrong – the base electorate allowance is $32,000 or about $615 a week.
Surely Bob has better things to worry about?
94 – sorry meant GDR – Great Dividing Range
Ra – I heard BB say on a-pac that he has often used his electoral allowance to give handouts to some person in trouble with paying a bill. He puts it in a separate account he said.
zoomster
Yesterday astro perfectly summarised several hours of argument. Today you have.
[However, given the low salary, the need to trust staff absolutely and the difficulty getting staff in the first place, I think that in some cases it’s almost unavoidable.
So not ideal, not recommended, but sometimes there aren’t many options.]
For the throat, I’d try gargling aspirin 900mg dissolved in a half glass of water then swallowed.
Although I’m a Dawkinsian atheist, I feel obliged to point out that paedophilia is LESS common amongst Catholic priests than it is in the general population. There’s a selection bias, in that when a priest gets caught it’s big news and everyone remembers the occupation but when a plumber (for eg) does, it doesn’t get reported and if it was the occupation is never remembered.
When priests offend, they tend to have more victims than average though.
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/labels.htm
[For the throat, I’d try gargling aspirin 900mg dissolved in a half glass of water then swallowed.]
For the throat, if it persists, seek medical advice from your preferred primary care doc.
Sorry Diog – I realise you are trying to help.
I run a site where people die because they ignore or hope things will go away, I also realise that my site deals with people who have very compromised immune systems.
But if you are sick – get professional help.