 |
| Green and red numbers respectively indicate size of two-party Nationals and Labor polling booth majorities. Click for larger image. Map boundaries courtesy of Ben Raue at The Tally Room. |
The electorate of Gippsland has covered the far east of Victoria since federation, and has been in National/Country Party hands since the party was founded in 1922. It currently extends as far westwards as the Latrobe Valley towns of Morwell and Traralgon, other major centres being Sale, Bairnsdale and Lakes Entrance. The Nationals’ hold appeared to be in serious jeopardy for the first time when the redistribution ahead of the 2004 election added Morwell and Traralgon, which had long been accommodated by the electorate’s western neighbour McMillan. However, Labor’s traditional strength in this area has been waning over the past two decades with the decline of its electricity industry, and a realignment among workers with a stake in coal mining resulting from climate change politics. Howard government minister Peter McGauran, who had held the since since 1983, increased his margin by 5.1% at the 2004 election, and the swing against him in 2007 was only 1.8%.
McGauran was the first member of the Howard government to leave parliament after the 2007 election defeat, resulting in a by-election held on 28 June 2008. This produced a three-way contest involving both the Nationals and Liberals as well as Labor, which at the time provided a spur to talk of a coalition merger. After a campaign dominated by the Rudd government’s “alcopops tax” and local concern over the prospect of an emissions trading scheme, the Nationals easily retained the seat, outpolling the Liberals 39.6% to 20.7% and gaining a 6.1% swing on two-party preferred – a surprisingly poor result for Labor given the strength of the Rudd government’s polling at the time. Labor’s primary vote fell 8.1%, and was down particularly heavily at the Latrobe Valley end of the electorate.
Gippsland has since been held for the Nationals by Darren Chester, who had previously been the chief-of-staff to state party leader Peter Ryan. Chester had earlier run unsuccessfully against Craig Ingram, then the independent member for the state seat of Gippsland East, at the 2002 state election, and sought Senate preselection at the 2004 federal election against Peter McGauran’s incumbent brother Julian, who went on to defect to the Liberal Party in January 2006. After his strong win at the by-election, Chester’s margin was little changed at the 2010 election, and he picked up a further 4.4% swing in 2013. Chester was promoted to shadow parliamentary secretary for roads and regional transport after the 2010 election, and became parliamentary secretary to the Defence Minister when the Abbott government came to power in 2013.
Boewar..
Final comment:
It’s up to UniSyd to determine whether or not Spurr has broken their CoC ..and if that warrants dismissal.
They don’t have to prove anything to anybody..
If Spurr then decides to appeal their decision ..it’s up to HIM to prove that decision was wrong..
S777
It is true that work emails are owned by the employer and are accessible to the employer and, only with direction, to the employer’s employees.
This does not make all workplace emails automatically ‘public’.
I am not aware of this being tested, but I assume that if employers deliberately made generally available workplace emails of a particular individual then there would be recourse for the emailer. This would include discovery of all the Employer’s emails during any subsequent court process. Further, the Privacy Act would most likely it forbid it.
However I believe that the privacy issue, while important, is probably not central to the Barry Spurr Affair.
What is important here is whether USyd/society decides what parody really is, and whether or not parody is off limits to some topics.
This has been done before in Australia. If you read the early history of the colony of New South Wales, parody of the establishment could get you into serious difficulties, for example.
Boer
[My original point was that it was not going to be as easy for USyd’s adminstrators to winkle Spurr out as most Bludgers seemed to think.]
And that’s entirely what the argument here is about.
[The immediate reaction was, more or less, ‘This is racist and sexist so kick him out.’]
No, it wasn’t. The argument has been around the ownership of the emails and whether or not parody etc are a justification.
That you are trying to make the argument something else suggests you really can’t support your original case.
The very fact Sydney University has been able to suspend him suggests they have the power to sack him. The first may not be as drastic as sacking, but it carries almost as serious consequences to his reputation and career prospects.
B
[… decides what parody really is …]
There is a difference between deciding what parody is and whether a specific piece is parody.
The Spurr Affair is over. I have declared it so.
For so much space to be taken up over a few emails that show the guy is a club-footed bogan, is incredible… yet it happened.
What he said is no worse than what is being said in pubs and at barbeques all the time, everywhere. Not by everyone, but by a significant percentage of Australians.
His argument is that irony should be permitted, which I personally believe is correct. Whether this is just an excuse to cover pretty bad behaviour is another thing.
Let the University decide.
Zoomster
[If the email use forbids certain uses, it forbids certain uses]
Does it forbid parody?
Spurr’s core business is, at its most basic level, words and their application to reality.
[Spurr’s only hope would be if the University actually specified that racist/sexist material was OK if it was for the purposes of parody or satire.]
The core point is this: if it is parody can it also be racist. Defining Spurr’s parody as being both, axiomatically prejudges the issue. Spurr’s point will be that because it was parody, it could not be either racist or sexist.
[In which case, parody isn’t a defence, either.]
Parody is quite normal and indeed good parody is celebrated in universities. For example, all student magazines would have to be closed instanter were parody to be banned.
[I know Will Shakespeare, and Spurr is no Will Shakespeare.]
Spurr has a powerful intellect all the same.
[DisplayName
Posted Monday, October 20, 2014 at 9:33 am | Permalink
B
… decides what parody really is …
There is a difference between deciding what parody is and whether a specific piece is parody.]
To decide whether a specific piece is parody you would have to define parody.
And in The Australian, too…
[WHISTLEBLOWER Kathy Jackson made a secret deal with the now jailed fraudster Michael Williamson to pay $240,000 over two years to one of her union allies — with a requirement that the recipient of the money do no work.
Under the confidential arrangement, Jackson ally and friend Jamie Martorana agreed to resign from his position as assistant divisional secretary of the Health Services Union in October 2010.
For the next two years, however, he remained on the union’s payroll, with pay-as-you-go tax deducted from his gross weekly “wages” of $2307.69 as though he was still a regular full-time employee turning up for work.
Details of the arrangement have emerged in Federal Court proceedings as union opponents of Mr Martorana try to block his attempt to take over the HSU’s Victorian No 1 branch by challenging his eligibility to contest looming elections.
The 2010 deal for Mr Martorana is the latest and possibly most extraordinary of confidential financial arrangements uncovered during an investigation by lawyers for the HSU’s current leadership into a merger that year between Ms Jackson’s and Williamson’s union branches when they formed a joint entity called HSU East.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnews%2Fdo-no-work-still-get-paid-kathy-jackson-and-michael-williamsons-union-ally-deal%2Fstory-e6frg6n6-1227095550531&ei=1D1EVJWVDNHU8gWqxYAQ&usg=AFQjCNH765iSAEMPik7MfSrb0B_0FySJHw&bvm=bv.77648437,d.dGc ]
B
[To decide whether a specific piece is parody you would have to define parody.]
Obviously, but that doesn’t mean that what they are doing *now* is deciding what parody is. They may have already decided that a long time ago.
DN
Agree.
Sometime or other ‘parody’ would have to have been defined, be being defined, or be about to be defined.
BB
Ms Jackson is rapidly achieving ‘colourful’ status.
Bushfire
I think it’s time to stop calling Jackson a ‘whistleblower’ and think of a new title.
Boer
I don’t know why you think that ‘parody’ would be an automatic defence. My opinion is the opposite – that if the University hasn’t qualified that such speech is appropriate ‘for the purposes of parody’ then it is irrelevant whether Spurr was using parody.
Alf Garnett and Archie Bunker are parodies. The emails written by Professor Spurr don’t read as that sort of parody. The Professor seems to be expressing among other things contempt for Aboriginal people and culture, nostalgia for a time when Australia was ‘white’ and attitudes that certain women ‘deserve what they get’. Not someone who should be allowed anywhere near the School Curriculum.
As to his ongoing employment, that’s between him and the University of Sydney.
lizzie@62
A can think of a few … but William would ban me 🙂
lizzie – “prime rorter”.
B @ 60
What you were implying is that they are trying to discover what parody is simultaneous to deciding whether or not something is parody. Though it’s likely someone had to do such a thing to begin with when the concept was first being worked out, such a process is fraught with problems, such as letting your prejudices of the subject inform it.
Given parody is a long established concept, there is little reason to talk about “deciding what parody is” instead of “deciding whether X is parody” other than to raise the spectre of those problems.
Boewar
I’m guessing that you still haven’t read the appropriate policies. From our ICT policy, of which our Code of Conduct links to, and therefore we must abide by:
http://sydney.edu.au/policies/showdoc.aspx?recnum=PDOC2011/140
The code has been breached multiple times, and breaching of the code may result in the termination of employment. All staff receive cumpulsory training with respect to harassment and discrimination where the use of humour and parody is directly adressed. It’s been made crystal clear to me as a staff member of the University that if I wrote e-mails such as these, then they would not be tolerated, and explained why.
66
CTar1
Posted Monday, October 20, 2014 at 9:56 am | PERMALINK
[lizzie – “prime rorter”.]
That definitely works!
One thing is certain. If Burr had been a professor of Muslim or Arabic literature and had written something like “all westerners should be beheaded”, then ASIO would have taken the words literally and had him arrested.
There would be no argument about him just joking as Burr has claimed. Abbott, Murdoch and the rest would attack him viciously. Ergas would not be writing a piece saying he had been unfairly treated.
[Bushfire
I think it’s time to stop calling Jackson a ‘whistleblower’ and think of a new title.]
Especially since one of the people she allegedly “blew the whistle” against was Williamson himself.
I remember that Jackson turned up to the Williamson arrest. Perhaps, instead of being there to gloat, or big-note herself, she was there to make sure that the police only got the evidence she intended them to get?
The usual answer that conservatives have when one of their saints turns out to be a sinner is to forget they ever existed.
It will be interesting to see whether these stories evaporate, ignored by the Daily Telegraph and Ray Hadley, or whether they are pumped up into a “Who’d have guessed it?” mea culpa campaign.
Perhaps (as someone suggested yesterday) they will push the story in order to pave the way for the union to be de-registered. It would be a pretty legal point then to see whether whatever was left of the union would be able to recover damages, costs etc. from Jackson.
She would still be under a moral cloud, but not a legal or financial one in this case.
Silly me.
I didn’t realize that the desperate defence of ‘it’s only parody’, on a work place computer, to colleagues no less, for years, by a person directly involved [thanks to Pyne’s ‘independent commission’ no less]in national education curricul development, was actually meant to be taken seriously.
As per article linked earlier. I say oopsy to the Abbott
[Germany’s intelligence service believes Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian rebels using a missile taken from a Ukraine military base, a German newspaper has reported.
The finding contradicts previous claims – including by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and US Secretary of State John Kerry – that the missile was supplied by Russia.
Sunday’s Der Spiegel reported that the BND, Germany’s foreign intelligence service, had completed a detailed analysis of the July 17 tragedy, in which all 298 passengers and crew died.
Two weeks ago, BND president Gerhard Schindler presented the evidence to a parliamentary committee, including satellite images and photos.]
Whoever leaked the emails obviously thought they were racist or they wouldn’t have done it. Given only Spurrs friends had access to them as Spurr has said, one of his friends has had enough of him.
New Matilda hardly hacked his email at random.
Diog
interestingly, an acquaitance of mine sent out an email to several people on the weekend, which contained one of those ‘isn’t this an outrage?” pieces which included – among other things – a passing slur about migrants.
There’s been at least three direct responses to him so far (and may be more which went to him personally instead of to all those on the list) pointing out the factual errors in the post, decrying the sentiments contained within, and suggesting he apologise for distributing it.
All very much in sorrow rather than anger.
One wonders whether somewhere, in Spurr’s email stream, there is a similar outcry. If so, it would be interesting – and very pertinent – to see what his response was.
WRT Henry Ergas’ spirited defence of Professor Spurr in The GG – in essence he is really just echoing AG Brandis’ argument that “people have a right to be bigots, you know”.
Ah, no, they don’t.
DR
Reading Spurr’s comments, one can only think of the outrage and derision that would emanate from the usual sources were Bob Ellis put in charge of the review of the English curriculum.
Ellis and Spurr seem to form a political “ying and yang” of Barry McKenzies.
I could’t get past this headline in the Oz:
[EXCLUSIVE
Flag raised for Murdoch note
ASHLEIGH WILSON
THE National Library has asked UNESCO to have Keith Murdoch’s WWI letter recognised internationally as a pivotal moment in our history.]
What did Rupert’s father do that was a pivotal moment in our history?
NathanA…
Thank you for linking to the SydneyUni ICT Policy..
It’s got the Spurr situation covered ..he doesn’t have a leg to stand on if dismissed..
PS: Not one mention of ‘parody’ ..or ‘irony’ in the document as far as I could see 😉
KJ just gets worse.
I’d be furious if I was in the HSU.
[WHISTLEBLOWER Kathy Jackson made a secret deal with the now jailed fraudster Michael Williamson to pay $240,000 over two years to one of her union allies — with a requirement that the recipient of the money do no work.
Under the confidential arrangement, Jackson ally and friend Jamie Martorana agreed to resign from his position as assistant divisional secretary of the Health Services Union in October 2010.
For the next two years, however, he remained on the union’s payroll, with pay-as-you-go tax deducted from his gross weekly “wages” of $2307.69 as though he was still a regular full-time employee turning up for work.]
How long before Spur wins:
(a) IPA fellowship
(b) Quadrant editorial role
(c) regular Oz column
(d) ABC Board position
(e) Plum job on some quango
(f) adviser (and joke writer) for Minister for women, Abbott, or for migration, or indigenous affairs
The Oz’s defense of him and attack on New Matilda was predictable (I predicted it here a few days ago) but is still breath-taking in its stridency and COMPLETE lack of self-reflection; for Murdoch media to rail against ‘hacking’ – even though it is obviously a leak by someone who wanted charming Spur out of their department (I’d be looking at his bosses and others who can legitimately access staff emails) – is once again beyond parody.
speaking of which – their ardent support for “Girlie-man is not a sexist term because it refers to ‘girlies’, which is not gender-specific (I shit you not, this is what they are arguing), and not ‘girls'” may be the winner of the “you can not parody us because we have no shame” award of the week.
Mad as Hell and Clarke and Dawe once again have a smorgasboard but a tough job in parodying the already absurd.
” What did Rupert’s father do that was a pivotal moment in our history? ”
failed to pull out?
The “Blake and Barbie Doll” Reality TV story goes mainstream. Now in the editorial pages of The Age and SMH.
It’s come full-circle: from confected crap, invented out of nothing, starring nobodies to front page news “reality”.
Sure, for a while the story was “meta”: reporting on the phenomenon that is Reality TV. Plonkingly so, I might add. Even Entertainment editors were in on the head-kicking.
But now, someone seems to have decided that The Bachelor qualifies as real enough to qualify as mainstream news. We’re not talking “the story about the story” anymore. We’re onto “the story” itself.
These people, Blake and Bimbo, were and are no-one. No-one except their families had ever heard of them. They have accomplished nothing out of the ordinary compared to other ordinary people, yet as of tdoay they are just as important in editorial terms as ebola, Iraq, MH-17, the Budget and all the rest of the “real” news.
Or is the “real” news, well… real?
If the media can turn Reality TV into reality, who’s to say they can’t turn reality into Reality TV?
And then back again. (I’m dizzy)
The headlines of late, torn down one-by-one as time passes – Jailhouse Jihadis, Supermax Riots, plots to blow up Lucas Heights, the Death Sword, “Australia is at WAR!”, boots on the ground, The Terror Within, MH-370 found(!), Climate science denial, Our warrior PM, shirt-fronting and so on – have been given exactly the same promotional treatment as Blake and Bimbo No. 3 have been given.
Tiny acorns of factual material have been turned into mighty oak trees of complete crap. They have been pushed so hard that they define politics today. If you naysay them you get patted on the head and told you’re a dreamer. The meme is established.
Today there is a story that German intelligence has concluded that the missile which shot down MH-17 was probably Ukranian, captured by Separatists. How long can this story last when, apparently, the nation (and certainly the Press Gallery) really, really want Abbott to shirt-front Putin over something he may well have had little – or nothing – to do with?
It’s convenient for the Reality TV version of news that Putin is the Evil Emperor who shoots down planes full of innocent civilians. Endless speculation about what Abbott will do, and whether Putin will even turn up to the G20 sells, and sells and sells.
The truth – if the German analysis is accurate (and I don’t think they got all their information from newspapers) – might well be discarded in favour of a better (but wrong) story about our Macho-Man PM standing up for the Murdered Innocents.
The truth is that in today’s media whatever serves as click bait, whether it be Gillard’s shoe malfunction, or Abbott’s pugilistic pretensions, bad Russians doing bad things, or Blake and his Bimbo falling in and out of love, receives equal prominence.
If Reality TV is indistinguishable in prominence, treatment and verisimilitude to actual reality, then the distinction between the two is obliterated. Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Must be a duck.
Anyway, I know you’ve been itching to read about Blake, so here here is…
[I think it’s time to stop calling Jackson a ‘whistleblower’ and think of a new title.]
I think stool pigeon (‘a criminal who gives information regarding other criminals’) would do it, perhaps with the adjectives ‘unreliable’, ‘former king pin’, ‘indemnity seeking’, and ‘appalling strategist’?
[I think it’s time to stop calling Jackson a ‘whistleblower’ and think of a new title.]
I think stool pigeon (‘a criminal who gives information regarding other criminals’) would do it, perhaps with the adjectives ‘unreliable’, ‘former king pin’, ‘indemnity seeking’, and ‘appalling strategist’?
sustainable future
I like the line of ‘reasoning’ which goes – ‘economic girlie men’ isn’t sexist, because putting the word ‘girlie’ before ‘men’ means ‘weak’ — which is no reflection on girls at all.
I find it very interesting that major leaks are now being offered to New Matilda ..and not Old Media
The times they are a changing.. 🙂
“I think it’s time to stop calling Jackson whistleblower’ and think of a new title”.
How about “Prisoner”?
Another Murdoch Oz headline:
[Howzat: Bishop sends them walking
STEFANIE BALOGH
FEDERAL Speaker Bronwyn Bishop has clocked up an unrivalled strike rate — sin-binning almost three Labor MPs a day.]
I don’t know what the article says but the headline implies that BBishop is some kind of sporting hero. It trivialises what is a major corruption of parliamentary procedure.
GG
It’s certainly going to be “defendant” and “accused” pretty soon.
She seems to be worse than Thomson. Almost in Williamsons league.
I still don’t understand why she blabbed. She’s really screwed up in every sense of the phrase.
I agree “economic girlie man” is sexist but I’m giving Cormann a pass as it’s clearly a self parody.
An old but true saying “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”.
davidwh
I think her ‘mental breakdown’, quite apart from being a defensive move, also stems from trying to keep so many untruths in order in her mind. A tangled web indeed.
Diogenes@91
I agree Dio.
I think he saw that he is stuck with the Arnie tag and has decided to play along with it. Not an unreasonable approach and it will be more productive that trying to fight it.
[citizen
Posted Monday, October 20, 2014 at 10:44 am | Permalink
I could’t get past this headline in the Oz:
EXCLUSIVE
Flag raised for Murdoch note
ASHLEIGH WILSON
THE National Library has asked UNESCO to have Keith Murdoch’s WWI letter recognised internationally as a pivotal moment in our history.
What did Rupert’s father do that was a pivotal moment in our history?]
He blew the whistle on what was really happening at Gallipoli.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Murdoch
[56
Boerwar
Spurr’s core business is, at its most basic level, words and their application to reality.]
This doesn’t really help Spurr. Rather, as a supposed specialist in the understanding and use of written language, he should arguably be held to a higher standard than the non-specialist. The expressions used by Spurr would not be tolerated if they had been made by, say, the uni groundsman or parking inspector. Why should his rank privilege his speech?
He is just going to have to wear it. Not only did he s%^t in his own nest, he also s#%t in the nest of the Uni, who has both the right and the duty to evict him from the tree.
S777
[The emails written by Professor Spurr don’t read as that sort of parody. The Professor seems to be expressing among other things contempt for Aboriginal people and culture, nostalgia for a time when Australia was ‘white’ and attitudes that certain women ‘deserve what they get’. Not someone who should be allowed anywhere near the School Curriculum.]
This is the issue that will need to be addressed by the person(s) investigating whether or no an infraction has occurred.
If the parody issue is sufficiently contestible, then it is going to be very difficult for USyd to winkle Spurr out.
[briefly
Posted Monday, October 20, 2014 at 11:26 am | Permalink
56
Boerwar
Spurr’s core business is, at its most basic level, words and their application to reality.
This doesn’t really help Spurr. Rather, as a supposed specialist in the understanding and use of written language, he should arguably be held to a higher standard than the non-specialist. The expressions used by Spurr would not be tolerated if they had been made by, say, the uni groundsman or parking inspector. Why should his rank privilege his speech?]
The issue of language play goes to the issue of whether Spurr was using workplace resources for private purposes. If he was playing with words then it is his core business then it is not private but is, in fact, part of his job.
That said, the parody issues stand.
[He is just going to have to wear it. Not only did he s%^t in his own nest, he also s#%t in the nest of the Uni, who has both the right and the duty to evict him from the tree.]
This is arguing by definition. You are essentially saying there is no parody in these circumstances.
I suggest that parody is one of those tricky issues where one person looks at words at face value while the next person says that the words actually represents another intent and therefore another reality.
[markjs
Posted Monday, October 20, 2014 at 11:01 am | Permalink
I find it very interesting that major leaks are now being offered to New Matilda ..and not Old Media
The times they are a changing.]
Except that The Australian routinely has first dibs on anything the Government has to offer by way of ‘leaks’.
Perhaps Cormann was using ‘girlyman’ ironically?