Leadership 101 – today’s lesson

OK Malcolm. Paying attention? Here’s the lesson: you are on your own side, you are on the same side as all the other people who sit with you and behind you in Parliament. No self-inflicted wounds. No creating hostages to fortune. No sacking of ministers, or anyone else, until the costs of not doing so are clearly overwhelming. That’s the lesson. Now a working example.

Exhibit A: Jamie Briggs. No doubt a story so terrible that if we heard it all, we would personally take every action to ensure that he was ostracised from decent company and run out of Parliament. At that point, out he goes, but not till that point is reached. Hasty action makes you look like a clown. This is where have now arrived at because of your intemperate actions. Although the heading looks OK – Journalist Samantha Maiden accepts Peter Dutton’s ‘mad witch’ text apology – the first paras in the Malcolm-friendly Oz are a bit of a worry:

Labor has lashed out at Immigration Minister Peter Dutton’s “boorish” and “unbecoming” text after he called a female journalist a “mad f.king witch”, urging Malcolm Turnbull to explain the cabinet minister’s behaviour.

Mr Dutton has come under fire for the text message he accidentally sent to News Corp Australia’s Sunday political editor, Samantha Maiden, over her coverage of fallen junior minister Jamie Briggs’s late-night bar incident with a female public servant in Hong Kong.

Mr Dutton has apologised for calling Maiden a “mad f.king witch” after she reported yesterday that Mr Briggs had sent colleagues a photograph of the diplomat who complained about his behaviour, which ultimately led to his resignation from the frontbench.

Dutton would not have emailed anything had you not created the Jamie Briggs saga. You are not the calming influence you need to be. I know you thought Tony Abbott should have sacked Bronwyn Bishop the moment he had heard about the helicopter ride. Maybe, but who knew then how it would unfold? How’s Tony Burke going, by the way? You remember, it was only last August: Tony Burke: Taxpayers slugged $2.2 million for travel costs including charter flights on VIP jets. Let me just give you a para from the story to help you remember:

The Western Sydney MP — who led the attack on former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop for hiring a charter helicopter for an 80km flight to attend a Liberal fundraiser — is a prolific entitlements seeker.

So Malcolm, if you are going to jump at every shadow, you will be an even bigger disaster than even I had thought you would be. From this moment on, you are in 100% defend-your-ministers mode. If Peter Dutton goes, so will you.

A political tin ear

briggsphoto

The part that gets me about all this is that Malcolm has such a political tin ear that he is quite content to create havoc in his own parliamentary party for no political advantage that I can see. There are lots of different issues but I will mention only one. Comes the next election, he will be very happy to have as many of his colleagues back as he can get. He thinks he’s on his way to an increased majority. I think it may be one of the closest election in years. If this is how to win more seats in South Australia, then there is a new world of political calculation I am not yet acquainted with.

Here are the further details so far as they are known. The photo is from an article up on The OZ website along with the heading, Jamie Briggs defends conduct over photo of public servant. How many hundreds of photos do politicians take just like this? How many nights out are there just like that? The further details:

Disgraced junior minister Jamie Briggs has confirmed to the Sunday Telegraph that he forwarded a photograph identifying the female public servant who lodged a confidential complaint about his behaviour in a Hong Kong bar to some colleagues.’

After publicly stating he had chosen not to name the woman to “protect her privacy’’ Mr Briggs has confirmed the photograph of the public servant published on the front page of The Weekend Australian was taken on his own mobile phone.

The Australian pixelated the image to protect the woman’s privacy but it was forwarded by Mr Briggs to his colleagues without an attempt to protect her identity.

The former minister did not leak the photo to The Australian but confirmed he had “sent it to a few ­people prior to the complaint and following’’.

He sent the photo prior to the complaint. And after the complaint became public, why should he not have sent the photo to colleagues as well. The name of the woman involved is no doubt now known across the entire public service by everyone in Canberra. Anyway, here is what he said.

“We interacted between the three of us and with others in what I believed at the time was an informal manner,” Mr Briggs said in announcing his resignation.

“At the conclusion of the evening, the public servant left to return home and my chief of staff and I returned to our hotel together. At no point was it my intention to act inappropriately and I’m obliged to note for the record that nothing illegal has been alleged or in fact did occur.

“However, in the days following the evening, the public servant concerned raised concerns about the appropriateness of my behaviour towards her at the venue. I’ve apologised directly to her but after careful reflection about the concerns she raised and the fact that I was at a bar late at night while on an overseas visit, I have concluded this behaviour has not met the particularly high standards for ministers. Therefore, the proper course of action for me is to resign.”

Labelling his behaviour an “error of professional judgment”, Mr Briggs publicly apologised to the public servant, his colleagues and the Australian community for his actions.

“(This has) given me cause to consider aspects of my behaviour, which I will address,” he said.

Unless there is more to this story than I have so far heard, there is nothing to this story at all, certainly not enough to create the lasting enmities that this one is very likely to do.

And to all this may be added this: Peter Dutton sorry for ‘mad witch’ attack on reporter. Or more accurately:

Senior cabinet member Peter ­Dutton has apologised for calling a female journalist a “mad f. king witch” over her coverage of fallen junior minister Jamie Briggs’s ­exploits in Hong Kong.

The Immigration Minister ­yesterday admitted that he sent the message to the political editor for News Corp Australia’s Sunday papers, Samantha Maiden, after she ­reported Mr Briggs had sent colleagues a photograph of the diplomat who complained about his behaviour at the Stormies Bar in late November.

It is understood Mr Dutton ­accidentally sent the text message to Maiden instead of Mr Briggs in what was intended as a show of support for the besieged South Australian MP.

This all distracts from how empty Malcolm’s economic understanding is. This is just as sad as it gets, a man with no plan hoping for the best: Households to drive the economy in 2016. A consumer-led recovery! There are no words.

That was 2015 – wait till you see 2016

Roger Simon in 2016: Year of the Chinese Curse first reviews the Obama years 1-7:

On the domestic front, race relations — initially pretty good, considering we’re talking about flawed human beings — have turned more sour than they’ve been in decades. A healthcare program was rammed down the country’s throat with multiple lies and now appears to be imploding on itself. The economy has stalled for years with the key labor participation rate near an all-time low. And our college campuses have turned into spawning grounds for over-privileged brats poised to imitate the excesses of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

But those problems are almost nothing compared to the international situation. Sunni extremism, which looked to be somewhat contained, has exploded in barbarism not seen since the mass butcheries of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot with ISIS, Boko Haram and al Qaeda. Add to this the bizarre non-agreement made by our country and others with Iran, bankrolling the religious psychotic mullahs to the tune of $100 billion plus, and the only conclusion you can come to is our government has gone insane or willfully seeks the suicide of the West in the face of Islam. On top of all this, the West, including the USA, is being invaded by Muslim refugees, a vast majority of whom undoubtedly believe in Sharia.

The past is prelude. Whatever is about to happen next has a darkness to it that makes optimism hard to find. It is why people such as myself wish Abbott were still PM. He had his flaws, but he at least understood the times in which we live. Mr Inane and Empty has no evident idea what the problems are never mind what to do about anything.

Breaching ministerial guidelines

At the same time that Bill Clinton’s depraved behaviour has entered the American political debate, we have “the Jamie Briggs affair” to consider. This is the sentence from the story in The Oz that needs to be focused on first:

Because of … concerns that any action taken against Mr Briggs might be seen as vindictive towards a supporter of Tony Abbott …

We certainly wouldn’t want to have that. So what exactly is alleged. First there is this:

At one point, the staffer, a legal graduate on her first overseas posting, complained to Mr Eaton that Mr Briggs was standing too close to her. Mr Eaton suggested she stand next to him, which the staffer did until the night out wrapped up about 2am.

Then there is this:

The consular staffer told the investigator Mr Briggs had told her she had “piercing” eyes and had placed his arm around her and kissed her on the neck.

But then there is Brigg’s version:

Mr Briggs, a South Australian conservative, has told colleagues he told another person in the bar the staffer had “beautiful eyes”, had only placed his arm around her when posing for a photograph and gave her a goodnight kiss on the cheek. There was no independent witness to the incident.

And this is how the story ends:

Senior government sources have confirmed cabinet governance committee members were concerned about the precedent that would be set by a sacking or resignation over such a borderline incident.

The claim against Mr Briggs did not contain any specific allegation of sexual harassment but rather “inappropriate” attention, but the committee members also recognised there were no sanctions available other than a sacking or resignation.

The process was seen by some to direct the outcome because once the committee was presented with a declaration that ministerial guidelines had been breached, it had little option but to endorse it.

The story did not say which ministerial guidelines in particular had been breached.

Bring Tony into Cabinet says Eric Abetz

Now being reported at The Australian: Eric Abetz: now bring Tony Abbott back to cabinet

Liberal senator Eric Abetz has called for Tony Abbott to be brought back into the cabinet after the sudden departure of two frontbenchers embroiled in controversy.

Cities Minister Jamie Briggs was yesterday forced to resign in disgrace after admitting an “error of professional judgment” in relation to an incident involving a young female public servant in Hong Kong while Special Minister of State Mal Brough stepped down pending the outcome of a police investigation into his role in the Peter Slipper affair.

Very messy and not a good look. I’m still not sure what Briggs had done, but I have to say that he would have to be off his rocker if he was a member of the cabinet and tried any of that Bill Clinton stuff.

Malcolm stiff-arming the Yarts Community

The events described are from a fortnight ago and the significance is that they have surfaced at all. This is an actual, no two ways about it criticism from the left of our new Prime Minister and reported in The Australian, PM’s Literary Awards: Turnbull snubs Adler, makes strange speech. It’s not often you catch me agreeing with Louise Adler, but on the issue of parallel imports, this is one where the contractual obligations imposed by publishers should be left alone by the government. This is from a story about Malcolm Turnbull stiff-arming the Yarts Community.

He [being the PM] dismissed Adler’s call — and bravo to her for having the guts to raise the issue — to rethink plans to scrap the parallel importation restrictions that protect Australian writers and publishers. “Even if territorial copyright were to crumble”, he said, Australian writers would “stand on their merits” and their works would “sing across the world and across the ages”. That just sounds glib.

If you think Malcolm understands any issue at all, you are a very optimistic man. It took two weeks for the story to appear which of itself might indicate that the Oz may not be quite as accommodating next year as it has been this year.

Media again fanning the winds of political change

Are we looking at more media meddling in politics? These are both from today’s Oz.

First we have Shorten in a parlous state as Turnbull turns Victoria against Labor. Which we may contrast with this article by Anthony Albanese which may be found on the editorial page: Let’s return to rational infrastructure spending.

Turnbull was always going to be easier to beat than Abbott since if you like Malcolm you are really going to love Albanese.

The TnT show

Who does this sound like?

Donald Trump is a standard-issue liberal-leaning businessman who, having decided that his best chance for glory lies with the GOP, found a few hot button issues that appeal to conservatives. If you move beyond these issues and get him off-message, he reverts to the liberal notions and cliches that predominate among the rich and famous.

The only difference between how Trump is described and our Malcolm is that he hasn’t even found a single one of those issues, hot button or not, that appeal to conservatives. Whatever he does that is reminiscent of the the conservative side of the ledger is only being done because he has been forced to by the 43 who would be in open rebellion if he tried to dodge the original agreement. But if you want to have some idea of what the PM is like, let me take you to Geoffrey Luck’s review of Malcolm Turnbull’s biography found at Quadrant Online. If you are looking for evidence that Malcolm has always been a man on a mission, go to the link. Here is a bit from the start on how he ended up leading a party of the right without having any principles to match.

Well explained is how despite the temptation of many ALP friends and mentors, Turnbull made the objective decision that in Labor, his wealth would ultimately frustrate his obsessive ambition to become prime minister.

I have no idea what Trump will be like as President but there he will almost surely be, in the same way that I still have no idea what Malcolm will be like as PM although that is what he now already is. But both from the business class, both from the left and both overflowing with confidence in their abilities.

Portable Long Service Leave

I have just made a submission to the Economic, Education, Jobs & Skills Committee of the Victorian Parliament on the extension of Long Service Leave. There are employees who do not have LSL. The Committee is therefore looking at whether this represents some form of inequity, how it might be rectified and what would be the costs of change. These are the points I have made.

There are employees who do not have Long Service Leave. The Committee is therefore looking at whether this represents some form of inequity, how it might be rectified and what would be the costs of change. Let me therefore make a number of initial points.

First, this is an historic form of payment that exists only in Australia and New Zealand. It was introduced in colonial times so that after twenty years in the colonies, someone could return home to visit the family. This is a vastly different world from our own. Then the calculation was one month to go back to England, one month to visit and one month to return. Its original purpose has, in our own time and with modern transport, entirely disappeared.

Second, Long Service Leave was specifically introduced as an incentive for workers to remain with an employer. This may have had some advantages in times of labour shortages. In the modern world, however, it is, if anything, an impediment to labour market flexibility. An employee will remain with an employer even if other better opportunities become available as the date of eligibility draws closer.

Third, businesses experience Long Service Leave as a cost. Provision must be made to fund a replacement over the period the employee is on leave. It is not one of the major costs of labour, but it remains a consideration that must affect employment.

Fourth, for key employees, Long Service Leave can be a problem for a business if the particular function cannot be undertaken adequately by a replacement. It is thus not just an added impost but is also a form of disruption which are more difficult to deal with.

Fifth, expanding the range of Long Service Leave will have a small cost on some businesses whose impact will wash out over the course of around three years. But even if it will wash out, it should not therefore be assumed that the impact will be negligible and it certainly will not be zero. At the end of three years, the number of employees in the industry that has newly introduced portable Long Service Leave will be lower than it might otherwise have been. In a labour market that turns over around a million employees a year, it would be hard to detect this loss of jobs. Nevertheless, raising the relative cost of employment for some industries will have a negative impact on growth and a negative impact on employment.

Sixth, the effect on the employees themselves must be considered. An employer recognises when taking on a full-time employee that there may be a cost seven years from then as the Long Service Leave pro rata period comes into effect. But with portable Long Service Leave, the effect, if the liability comes in the form of an entitlement to a period of leave, may induce some employers to reject candidates for jobs they might otherwise have engaged. If an employee is about to enter the period where Long Service Leave applies, an employer may prefer an alternative candidate where the period is not as short.

Seventh, there will also be the cost and disruption perhaps ten years into the future of any employee who is engaged if Long Service Leave is introduced where it had not previously been available. Most private sector employees do not remain with the same employer for a decade, so for most it will merely amount to a sum of money. With Long Service Leave well and truly embedded in the economy, virtually every firm will recognise the need to make provision for such absences and the costs they entail. The certainty is that with such a mature entitlement, the cost of Long Service Leave has been financed by a lower rate of wage payment over the previous period.

Conclusion: There is no particular reason to extend Long Service Leave.

There is no serious likelihood that anyone is being relatively underpaid at the present time because they do not have Long Service Leave. The labour market is a flexible market. Wage adjustments are attuned to the value of the work undertaken relative to the remuneration in full. People do tend to get paid their economic value.

Employees where Long Service Leave is not available currently receive more than they otherwise would receive if Long Service Leave were in place. Introducing Long Service Leave will lead to lower remuneration relative to what might otherwise have occurred.

It is quite possible that employees prefer to receive the relatively higher amounts of money they receive than have their incomes pared back to finance this future contingency.

The concept itself is an anachronism but an important part of our history. It should not be removed but there is no reason that it must therefore be extended.

Any change would be for populist reasons. It would raise costs in some businesses and lower employment in some industries. It would not make the labour market any more equitable than it currently is.

Unless there is some serious injustice which is invisible to me, I would leave matters as they are.

How many of these are there?

I looked at this and thought that there had to be something wrong. It couldn’t be this easy to defraud the government of $16 million, but it is. And these have been picked up only because they were so greedy. How many are around that only defraud the government of a million or two?

Six people have been charged in Melbourne’s western suburbs for allegedly submitting fraudulent claims for taxpayer-funded family day care payments worth nearly $16 million[!!!!!].

Australian Federal Police have also seized assets worth $1.1m that are believed to be proceeds of the alleged crime, including two Melbourne properties, a “significant amount” of funds in bank accounts and two luxury vehicles.

The AFP arrested the alleged scammers with a range of serious fraud offences after executing a number of search warrants yesterday. . . .

“It will be alleged that members of this group have repeatedly submitted false claims on behalf of family day care centres in Melbourne’s western suburbs, particularly to exploit the Grandparent Child Care Benefit scheme,” AFP Manager Criminal Assets, Fraud and Anti-Corruption Commander Peter Crozier said.

“This scheme helps grandparents with the childcare costs for grandchildren in their care. It covers the full cost of fees associated with up to 50 hours of childcare per child per week.”

So you tell me how this could happen? The supposed moral of the story is exactly the other way round.

“Perpetrators of fraud are on notice: you will be caught and there are severe consequences, including the possibility of jail time,” Senator Birmingham said.

“This tough stance is necessary to ensure our taxpayer dollars are directed to those operators doing the right thing, compliant with Family Assistance Law and delivering high quality, flexible and affordable child care to families.

What it really says to me is that these Commonwealth programs are run by such dills that there is money there just for the taking if you are larcenous enough to try your luck.