Peris is no more "guilty" than most of us

Posted October 30, 2014 10:16:16

Photo: Nothing that has been reported of the alleged Nova Peris - Ato Boldon emails shows any impropriety involving taxpayers' money. (AAP/Getty)

There is nothing improper about organising your private life around your work commitments - I've done it myself. So the allegations against Nova Peris appear nothing more than whipping up sizzle and steam, writes Terry Barnes.

It seems that the best way to attack a public figure these days is to leak their private emails.

Two weeks ago it was University of Sydney poetry professor Barry Spurr, whose private emails written to various people using the university's email system somehow found their way to Left-leaning online magazine New Matilda. Spurr talked about other people issues in language that was certainly not that of a cultured aesthete, and it contained racist, sexist and misogynistic references, including digs at public figures including Tony Abbott, Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu.

Spurr was considered fair game because, New Matilda’s editor asserted, his private emails cast a poor light on the values of a man playing an important role in the Abbott Government's review of the National Curriculum for Australia's schools.

This week it was Labor senator for the Northern Territory Nova Peris, who allegedly sent racy emails to multiple Olympic medallist and Trinidadian sprinter Ato Boldon, which were splashed by the NT News. The newspaper alleged that in 2010 Peris, in order to get Boldon to Australia, persuaded taxpayer-funded bodies to contract him to participate in Athletics Australia junior coaching programmes, partly funded with Indigenous grants.

Peris has denied wrongfully using taxpayer funds, and it is noteworthy that her Coalition political opponents have held their fire. Spurr is challenging the publication of his emails in court, amid New Matilda hints that more may come. Predictably, social media has been in a lather about both Spurr and Peris, but from opposite directions: in Twitter's Colosseum of the baying mob, Spurr has been lashed by the loony Left and Peris by the ratbag Right.

However self-righteously New Matilda and the NT News dress up their motives, it's hard not to believe that the prime reason for publishing was that the sensational emails sizzle, spit and steam like a hotplate of Chinese chilli beef. They're lewd, crude and steamy. Peris's declarations of lust for Boldon titillate, and Spurr's crude talk of "darkies", "Mussies" and an "appalling minx" lessens a man who champions English literature and the Western literary canon.

But both Spurr and Peris believed that they were communicating privately, and not for publication. Their current misadventures are a salutary reminder that whatever you email can end up in the public domain for scrutiny, criticism, ridicule and even prosecution.

There are differences in the Spurr and Peris cases. Ato Boldon has challenged the veracity of the emails, calling them "gross fabrications". And with the exception of disparaging comments about Cathy Freeman, the alleged Peris/Boldon communications are about a love-struck woman's flirtation with a man she apparently was besotted with at the time and who seems to have been less so with her. But in both cases their comments were not meant for anyone but the email recipients.

Did Spurr deserve to be suspended from the University of Sydney because of his private, if unwise, emails? No. Does Peris deserve to be attacked over her saucy private emails? No. They both have been mightily embarrassed and humiliated, but that's it.

In Peris's case, what wrongdoing has she actually committed? She pitched for Boldon to be brought to Australia for a legitimate purpose, and her close connection with Boldon appears to have helped him decide to come. Athletics Australia, for whom Peris was then an ambassador, was happy to sponsor Boldon's visit. The visit apparently proceeded to everyone's satisfaction, including the kids he coached. Nothing that has been published or reported has shown any illegality or impropriety involving taxpayers' money.

The bottom line is that, whatever her personal motivation, Peris put a business proposal to the responsible authorities, and that proposal was accepted and acted upon by them. Any side benefits for her private life were incidental. End of story.

If Peris is "guilty" of impropriety because she planned social catch-ups around work events, so are most of us. When we go interstate or overseas on business trips, must we do nothing but work and see nothing but hotel rooms? No. When work is done, we're free to look up local family and friends, try the nightlife, be a tourist and generally have a good time - and provided that we don't abuse our expenses or harm our employer's reputation, that's perfectly legitimate.

I'm guilty myself. Years ago, when I lived in Canberra, I had a period where government work brought me frequently to Melbourne. Off-duty, I took advantage of my proximity to court my Melbourne-resident girlfriend, now wife. But that personal pleasure was incidental to my purpose for being there, and didn't interfere with my duties. If anything, my happy state of mind improved my work performance!

Are Spurr, Peris and Boldon's emails salacious? Oh my Lordy, yeah! But that's no justification for the gross invasions of their privacy. The worst that can be said of this trio is that they were careless, naïve and unwise - in other words, human like the rest of us. Even though as public figures Spurr and Peris effectively taped signs to their bums, saying "Kick Me!", the rest of us, especially those of us on the Right who place a high nominal value on individual freedom and privacy, must rise above the temptation to score petty political points over their distress.

So let's move on. There's nothing to see here.

Terry Barnes is a Melbourne-based public policy consultant and formerly a senior Howard government adviser. Follow him on Twitter: @TerryBarnes5. View his full profile here.

Topics: internet-culture, government-and-politics, media, social-media

Comments (157)

Add your comment

Erick Quang:

30 Oct 2014 10:35:19am

" So lets move on " ,and i agree but to an independent inquiry to see if taxpayers money was miss used and if it was to get that money returned .

Reply Alert moderator
- Rhonda:
  
  30 Oct 2014 12:38:24pm
  
  Erick THAT would be a waste of taxpayers' money - and in any case, there seems to no such thing any more, as an 'independent' inquiry.
  
  I'm sure most Liberals would like to forget the "Utegate" incident - emails fabricated by Godwin Grech in an attempt to discredit a Labor PM. Who's to say this isn't the case here?
  
  This claim against Nova Peris is a storm in a teacup, no doubt coming at a time designed to distract us from something of far greater importance. It's a pity reputations have to be tarnished in the process though.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - MC:
    
    30 Oct 2014 2:15:13pm
    
    Should one side gets press caught in a trap having a few Ben Butley moments exercising the newly promulgated "Right to be a Bigot"
    
    Then the other must respond with whatever springs rhymingly to mind.
    
    It just titly for tattle really.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - Melena:
    
    30 Oct 2014 4:35:24pm
    
    So you have no concerns by her racial slurs and overtures? I really gasp at your cordial acceptance of the exposed character flaws of our NT Senator.
    
    Are we so pathetic as to accept that because Nova has indigenous heritage she is immune to critisim for racially motivated discrimination. If these emails are true there will be many here at the ABC with egg of their face by the way they have conveniently ignored the racial context of the content.
    The accusations of fraud are certainly a matter unresolved. Novas attempt to deflect the relevance of the emails has so far been very short of adequate. In fact she is more concerned about how these emails were uncovered than defending the content.
    
    Please ABC, provide some sort of balance on this issue otherwise you will ultimately be regarded no better than those right wing rags we detest!
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- Mike:
  
  30 Oct 2014 5:07:31pm
  
  Erick, you do need to move on, the organisation indicated the monies request was reviewed by an Independent Audit, and passed muster, why must you want to bury your head in someone else's private matters. I met my wife through our work and belonging to the same organisation, we have two children and we held hands at a work function or two, streuth I may have even kissed her during work hours - should I pay back my wage? Really Erick get a life!
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Judy Bee:
  
  30 Oct 2014 5:09:46pm
  
  It is time to move on Erick Quang,
  
  As the article justly sums up: - "In Peris's case, what wrongdoing has she actually committed? She pitched for Boldon to be brought to Australia for a legitimate purpose, and her close connection with Boldon appears to have helped him decide to come. Athletics Australia, for whom Peris was then an ambassador, was happy to sponsor Boldon's visit. The visit apparently proceeded to everyone's satisfaction, including the kids he coached. Nothing that has been published or reported has shown any illegality or impropriety involving taxpayers' money".
  
  There is no case. Case dismissed. We are witnessing Grubby Salacious Journalism from the usual suspects.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Jay Somasundaram:
  
  30 Oct 2014 7:02:47pm
  
  The question is simple, and does not require an inquiry. Did the "proper authorities" follow good procedure when expending money? Procedures that ensure public monies are spent in the best possible manner, that it is seen as fair and above board and such that all potential applicants have a level playing field and are treated equally.
  
  It seems very likely that the answer is no, which means that the "proper authorities" did not fulfil their duties, and if so Peris's actions could be seen as exercising undue influence and an attempt at corruption.
  
  The real problem is that it is now considered acceptable for politicians to ignore good public sector practice, and Terry Barnes sees nothing wrong in it. We need a change in culture among our politicians. When the rorting of travel allowances came out, many of the politicians offered the excuse that it was ok because everybody did it......
  
  Even the private emails. The question we need to ask is do they indicate a culture and attitude that it is in the public interest to know and thus do something about.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Glistening Beaver:

30 Oct 2014 10:36:03am

I have no care what anybody does in there private lives. However the question is; did Nova Peris steal money from her employer? if the Answer is yes then she needs to be charged for stealing as a servant or whatever the charge is. The law must apply to every one equally. I and other tax payers are tired of politicians getting caught for rorting there travel expenses and then saying " oh really I will just give the money back it was an oversight sorry". Try that excuse as an employee of the commonwealth bank, I am so sorry while travelling on official bank business extra money went missing into my pocket by accident, see how far that gets you.

Reply Alert moderator
- seres:
  
  30 Oct 2014 10:52:09am
  
  maybe go back and read the article
  cheers
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - John:
    
    30 Oct 2014 11:13:59am
    
    People hardly read articles. Comments are more interesting and fun.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - jordan:
    
    30 Oct 2014 11:21:45am
    
    @ seres
    
    The article is an opinion, its not a statement of fact, lets find out the facts shall we, after all, it is taxpayer monies.
    
    You are aware That the Lady was married at the time, Good old Terry the author did not mention that did he, funny that :)
    
    Thank you Nova for being a great role model for my children, thank you Terry for the whitewash, their ABC at work again..
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - muzz:
      
      30 Oct 2014 1:11:19pm
      
      I wonder how many politicians of all parties have committed adultery if they are the same rates as the rest of society then quite a few . The reason this has been published is because because she is a ALP parliamentarian just to smear the party .
      
      Would you care if this had not been publicised no because you wouldn't know about it. How many MPs have had to pay accommodation and travel allowances over the years so may i can't remember them all they get away with it this is misusing public funds they get away with it .
      
      Remember Millions of dollars being given to a Chocolate factory in the election by Abbott that is a misuse of Public money and didn't somebody in the LNP have connections to that factory.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - jordan:
      
      30 Oct 2014 1:29:50pm
      
      @ Muzz
      
      No, its been published because its fact, she has abused her position, she has betrayed her family, and now we get a glimpse of the real Nova, and its not nice.
      
      "would you care if this had not been publicised no because you wouldn't know about it."
      
      What exactly does this comment even mean? Are you suggesting we are all better off being ignorant as to her actions? Good grief, make sense and put your partisan mind set behind you.
      
      The chocolate factory? What is the relevance of this comment? Thats what governments do, recall the 100's of millions being given to pink batts and useless school building projects? Is that a misuse of public money?
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - bren:
      
      30 Oct 2014 2:30:04pm
      
      Her current position as Senator for NT, and the way she was pre-selected makes it more interesting (especially as it could easily be internal ALP payback for that pre selection).
      
      However, as an Olympian she would be newsworthy anyway. Look at the former Olympians who have drug charges, messy divorces, sleep tablets etc that are somehow 'newsworthy' as well, long after there sport careers are over.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Robert:
      
      30 Oct 2014 4:53:19pm
      
      Wow, now there's a man with a chip on his shoulder!
      
      The sports commission has said all sports programs were audited as part of their funding requirements and the independent assessment found the funds were "spent for the purposes they were provided".
      
      End of story.
      
      What we really want to know is who leaked the emails, how were these emails obtained and why did News Corp choose to print them? Given News Corps history in this area as evidenced by the hacking of a dead kiddies phone, we can only hope the AFP are doing their job without fear or favour!
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Rhonda:
      
      30 Oct 2014 5:23:01pm
      
      Yes Robert, I look forward to the day when the AFP do their job "without fear or favour" - haven't noticed it lately.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Sir Robert of Lindsay:
    
    30 Oct 2014 12:55:18pm
    
    yes , seres, reading the article definitely helps.
    
    It looks as though Peris is in trouble for doing her job properly. ie advocating for a high profile athlete to visit our shores. Most in Boltons position earn their living this way.
    
    If Peris tried to get him out here and get some cash herself it would be a different story. Equally if she used her relationship to get him out here gratis it could be seen as inappropriate. All she did was advocate, a part of her job.
    
    Little wonder Murdoch's grubby hands are all over this. In the world of the conservative Murdoch media she is thrice guilty. Being a woman, an aboriginal, and a single woman is all the Murdoch scum need to hang you these days.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - rb:
      
      30 Oct 2014 2:39:03pm
      
      I sincerely think you ought to reflect on who the 'scum' in all of this really is.
      
      If you can't see the impropriety (and the personal stuff is important context) then you are simply engaging in useless victimology - i.e. because of the 'group' she represents, she can do no wrong.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Living in a cloud castle:
      
      30 Oct 2014 4:00:46pm
      
      I can't see anything even arguably wrong in Nova's conduct. . Can someone spell it out?
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Applaudanum:
      
      30 Oct 2014 4:37:27pm
      
      I'll have a try at spelling it out.
      
      She used her position to obtain personal advantages rather than the professional advantages that come with doing the job. Furthermore, it appears that the selection of 'visiting guests' was chosen according to personal requirements rather than the requirements of the organisation. How can we be sure that other visiting guests weren't considered solely because they didn't measure up to Peris' personal 'requirements'? The selection of such visiting guests, which no doubt costs the organisation plenty of money, should be undertaken in a transparent and clearly accountable manner.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - The Other John:
      
      30 Oct 2014 5:37:21pm
      
      I have always respected Nova Peris and her achievements in sport for this country, and her compassion for public service, even though I don't agree with her politics.
      
      However, as a white Australian I now realise what Nova thinks of me and all other white Australians, and it makes a mockery of her calls for less racism in this country.
      
      Her language and the ABC ignorance of the racist undertones of her conduct saddens me a great deal. More so when compared with the ABC incessant coverage of Barry Spurr's emails.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
- Tom1:
  
  30 Oct 2014 11:02:42am
  
  GB: If you read the article again you will see that Peris put a proposition to her employer which was accepted. Bolden apparently fulfilled his contract to everyone's satisfaction.
  
  Peris was not a politician at the time.
  
  People will eventually wake up to the fact that E mains and text messages are not private.
  
  There can be no charge for stupidity. If there was, most of our politicians would be criminals.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - John:
    
    30 Oct 2014 12:26:43pm
    
    Thank you Tom1. If Nova didn't personally "involve" with the great athlete it would have cost us the tax payers significantly more I would think. All ends well and everyone is a winner...
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Melena:
      
      30 Oct 2014 12:53:01pm
      
      Is racial vilification a winner? Nova made multiple racial insults and connotations that would be considered abhorrent by any other standard. Do you also accept this as reasonable for a person in her position then and especially now to carry this sort of discriminatory approach.
      
      It is certainly not her fault that these emails were made public but they have and now sheneeds to explain herself and make the appropiate decision and resign!
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      30 Oct 2014 3:01:45pm
      
      Melena I am being cheeky. notice the word "involve" ?? I was wondering whether ABC would publish it and they did! I agree that we expect people to be at higher standard since we have set the bar very high. The fact this happened before entering into politics does not cut. This cuts both ways to the left and the right. I find the left jumping to the defense is really funny when it cuts into left.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - mike:
      
      30 Oct 2014 1:05:20pm
      
      @ Tom
      
      Peris put a proposition to her employer yes, did she make full disclosure, NO!
      
      Do you think they would have accepted her proposition if full disclosure was made, NO!
      
      The emails are perfectly clear on this, the proposal was mutually beneficial to Peris, a married woman at the time with children may I add.
      
      The author, a publicity agent , almost suggests we are all guilty of this, I dont think so, you know, I dont think I have ever made a proposition to my employer to pay somebody to fly in from overseas and do a job, whilst at the same time I have an affair with them, maybe I am out of touch however, after all, I have only been married 30 years.
      
      This is a breach of trust in both business and family matters, your tax payer dollars at work.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Freddie Frog:
    
    30 Oct 2014 12:55:35pm
    
    Yes,
    but the question is would she have put that particular proposition involving that particular person to her employer if not for her personal relationship?
    
    Jobs for the booty calls now?
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- Pamela Stevens:
  
  30 Oct 2014 11:16:38am
  
  It's already been established that Nova did not use her own money. The emails prove the nature of the relationship. We don't care about her personal life unless its funded by tax payer's dollars! Most of us don't use our employer's money for personal matters. If we did we would probably be in prison! This is biased reporting at its best, typical.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Pamela Stevens:
  
  30 Oct 2014 11:18:18am
  
  It's already been established that Nova did not use her own money. The emails prove the nature of the relationship. We don't care about her personal life unless its funded by tax payer's dollars! Most of us don't use our employer's money for personal matters. If we did we would probably be in prison! This is biased reporting at its best, typical.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Stuffed Olive:
  
  30 Oct 2014 12:22:01pm
  
  Peris clearly stole nothing, NOTHING. There is no question to be answered.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - gbe:
    
    30 Oct 2014 12:46:34pm
    
    No I would say theft has not been seen as an issue it's inappropriate use of a political position to influence a decision that is under question.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      30 Oct 2014 1:12:02pm
      
      Peris was not in politics and was not a Senator at the time. It was all to do with athletics and she put forward a proposal which was agreed on and followed through successfully. Just another Liberal smear campaign gbe. Your lot excel at that and nothing else.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Bob the Battler:
      
      30 Oct 2014 5:15:30pm
      
      It was public money, she had a massive conflict of interest and did not disclose it. Failing to disclose a conflict of interest has seen many parliamentarians censured and so it should.
      
      i think you'll find the LibNats have nothing to do with it. Look closer to home, she has pointed the finger at family members.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Alphamikefoxtrot:
      
      30 Oct 2014 5:16:41pm
      
      'Just another Liberal smear campaign'. Peris got up in Parliament today and said the release was about a family custody matter. Just once, perhaps you could get your facts right before mouthing off, but I won't hold my breath.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - John1:
    
    30 Oct 2014 12:49:14pm
    
    Interesting Olive, you weren't nearly as gracious towards Spurr!
    
    However, Peris clearly wanted Boldon to come out so she could see him, and went about trying to organise government funding to effect that outcome.
    
    She most certainly does have questions to answer, including allegations of racism!
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      30 Oct 2014 1:13:57pm
      
      Spurr was a political appointment and is clearly biased against the interests of a good curriculum. That was in the public interest and his emails were not private.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Shane:
      
      30 Oct 2014 4:43:34pm
      
      And Peris wasn't a political appointment?
      
      Reply Alert moderator
- Living in a cloud castle:
  
  30 Oct 2014 3:59:30pm
  
  Umm, what money did Nova ever have? Someone else gave her boyfriend a job. He did it.
  
  This is the very definition of a storm in a tea cup.
  
  The NT news should be sued for copyright infringement, breach of confidence, and invasion of privacy.
  
  Nova was entitled then, as a private citizen, and now, as a Senator, to bang whoever she likes and to have consensual erotic email exchanges with whoever she likes. It is not our business.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- MC:
  
  30 Oct 2014 4:44:43pm
  
  "if the Answer is yes then she needs to be charged for stealing as a servant"
  
  You do know that Downton Abbey is fiction?
  
  That Transportation and flogging parsons stopped in 1868?
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Noel Conway:
  
  30 Oct 2014 5:08:08pm
  
  There is no suggestion that Nova stole money. Good grief, man, get a grip. And why publish personal information on who she chooses to sleep with her her personal views of Cathy Freeman? What has any of that got to do with wrongdoing?
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Dapsta:

30 Oct 2014 10:46:06am

Given the furore over the private and racist e-mails of the university professor the other week, I have to expect the same twitter rent-a-mob will be out in force to demand that she reveal everything and that her private e-mails are a matter for the public.

Especially given the accusation of use of public funds.

Reply Alert moderator
- Graham H:
  
  30 Oct 2014 11:52:13am
  
  If the emails are to be believed - I find it interesting that Peris encouraged the athlete and said she would "set it up" to evade paying tax on his earning.
  
  I find it so hypocritical though that T Abbott had so much criticism about his daughters scholarship - not funded by taxpayers - and his bike rides and wedding attendances are queried.
  
  Yet for this labor senator - the author says its blind eye time and that such thing is Ok ?
  
  Where is the Yank and Olive on this one ?
  
  You need hand it to ex PM Gillard too. The ex partner, C Thomson and now this. She sure could pick 'em.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Stuffed Olive:
    
    30 Oct 2014 1:15:26pm
    
    I've responded Graham but the mods have not followed through.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - Ann:
    
    30 Oct 2014 2:07:51pm
    
    Graham, that's fair then. I will expect Peris to pay back the taxpayer money she owes at the exact same time that Abbott is chased for and pays back all the money he claims for his "charity" events and attending people's weddings.
    
    Thanks.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - mt_syd:
    
    30 Oct 2014 3:14:10pm
    
    Peris was not a senator at the time of the incident. Just a private citizen trying to arrange a government funded trip for a person she liked. It appears he did the job he was paid to do and no money was wasted or funneled into anyone's bank account, or spent on things it shouldnt have been spent on.
    
    It is a beat up.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - OUB :
      
      30 Oct 2014 4:02:04pm
      
      I agree with you MT. But Abbott wasn't a politician at university, Spurr isn't a politician, Abbott Jnr still isn't a politician. Various smart alecs thought they were fair game. If you call one a beat up it is hard to distinguish the other cases.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - DangerMouse:
    
    30 Oct 2014 3:29:10pm
    
    Graham, plus support for P Slipper.
    
    Everyone had Gillard's total support, even Kevie, until they didn't...
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - lazarus:
      
      30 Oct 2014 7:23:43pm
      
      Didn't the current Prime Minister give a bloke named Peter Slipper a glowing reference and attend his wedding as a mate?
      
      Reply Alert moderator
- Sir Robert of Lindsay:
  
  30 Oct 2014 1:02:48pm
  
  Let me weigh this up...
  
  One was a private citizen doing a job she was paid for, and doing it well if the outcome was to be believed.
  
  The other an appointee to a plush government position deciding on the future curriculum all our kids would be taught who revealed his outdated, bias and racist views a few days the release of a document he helped author that wants us to downplay the roles of aboriginals in Australia and concentrate on white European history.
  
  Yep, seems a fair comparison to me
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Albo:
    
    30 Oct 2014 1:46:59pm
    
    Rubbish !
    Both were working ( and seems playing) whilst in the payroll of the taxpayer , and it seems both have spent their whole careers courtesy of you and me and our taxes !
    Surely we can expect some value for our years of funding without even being asked ?
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - mt_syd:
      
      30 Oct 2014 3:15:57pm
      
      "Surely we can expect some value for our years of funding"
      
      and you got it. Boldon came to Australia, and did the job he was paid for. No money went where it shouldnt have.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
Steve_C:

30 Oct 2014 10:46:38am

This whole Spurr-Peris 'beat up' is like watching kids in the playground trying to justify themselves with tit-for-tat inventions!

Talk about confected angst!!

Meanwhile; I'm more concerned that Prof. Spurr's personal biases may be used to define the future curriculum that is used for formulating how and what is taught to students in English classes!

Surely the teaching of English and the curriculum that directs it in this country needs to be less "Americanised" and more "Australianised"!!

It's clear to me, that Prof. Spurr's recommendations take the subject further away from "Australianised", and much more towards "Americanised", despite the veneer some people may see them of having, that would ostensibly return some 'good old fashioned English values' to the teaching of English...

Reply Alert moderator
- Dapsta:
  
  30 Oct 2014 11:03:01am
  
  Actually she's expressed some pretty concerning views/opinions about what she thinks of white people in Australia. Given that she's a senator, I'd say there's probably a bit more of an impact that could potentially be had.
  
  I'm of African descent, yet acknowledge that you have to use the same measuring stick here.
  
  I haven't read the e-mails, but from what I understand they give a lot of insight into her views. That or she was just trying to talk big to impress this guy.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Steve_C:
    
    30 Oct 2014 11:35:55am
    
    "Actually she's expressed some pretty concerning views/opinions about what she thinks of white people in Australia."
    
    I've got some views/opinions about white Australians that some people would no doubt see as being "concerning"... They're my views and opinions. They don't mean I'm going to change my desire to be the best possible person I can be, nor as friendly and happy-go-lucky when I'm out in public as my health at the time allows me to be.
    
    I even have the prerogative/right to change them whenever I feel like it, as others have the right/prerogative to change theirs as freely too.
    
    My - or anyone else's for that matter; ethnicity, creed, physical characteristics, gender etc, etc, surely shouldn't make any difference?
    
    And while I agree with you that "you have to use the same measuring stick", I'd contend that it shouldn't matter about the place where the same measuring stick is used, as equally as it's important that one shouldn't try to make one measuring stick fit something that's it's not actually appropriate for, despite how some people may try to force it to fit.
    
    BTW; I expect your observation that Nova may have just been trying to "impress this guy", is not too far off the mark... in which case, she's just shown she's human. How many of us aren't?
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Applaudanum :
      
      30 Oct 2014 1:09:17pm
      
      Sure, it shows she is human. It also shows she was functioning well below her pay band. What's that, the Captan's pick put that pay band out further?!
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Jade:
    
    30 Oct 2014 3:21:40pm
    
    Is there evidence that Peris' "concerning" views regarding white people affected her decisions or influenced her ability to do her job effectively in any way?
    
    Spurr's emails indicate very concerning world views, which appear to have influenced his recommendations regarding the National Curriculum in English, something that will impact on every Australian child for a long time to come.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
Econ:

30 Oct 2014 10:47:37am

So Nova Peris encouraged and attracted another sportsman to Australia, and she did it using charm, isn't that normal?

I would prefer to be charmed into doing something.

This is utter nonsense. She persuaded tax payer funded bodies, so what, that's quite legitimate, she didn't coerce them!

Reply Alert moderator
2bishops1prawn:

30 Oct 2014 10:47:55am

Dead right Terry, nothing to see here.
Pity though, there isnt some sort of penalty for people sifting through personal emails, and other personal communications, and publicising them, not advocating censorship, just peoples right to privacy.

Reply Alert moderator
Keith Lethbridge Snr:

30 Oct 2014 10:52:03am

G'day Terry.

Once again, people are reading other people's private mail. And certain media folk are gleefully making money out of the practice. Give us a break. The world won't come to a shuddering halt because somebody sent an email message.

Others will disagree, but in my humble opinion, whatever the lady wrote is entirely her business. If anyone thinks it's a great cost to tax-payers, imagine the cost of time spent in worrying about such nonsense.

Regards,

Cobber

Reply Alert moderator
- Hoju:
  
  30 Oct 2014 11:13:34am
  
  Im sure if Tony Abbott used taxpayer money to have an affair the lefties on here would feel exactly the same way as you.
  
  Whats a few thousand dollars here and there. And its their private life. If they wants to bill the taxpayer for their trysts thats just fine.
  
  Wait, there was frothing over $500 airfare claims by Liberals when they would attend public and private functions.
  
  Im so confused. Especially when there was no issue with Labor ministers using Air Force jets (at costs which were vastly higher than a commercial airline seat) to attend functions.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - bide and fecht:
    
    30 Oct 2014 11:24:11am
    
    So you'll just perpetuate the cycle of blame instead of making a stand somewhere and saying enough. Great idea....it'll never solve anything for you though.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- Gregory:
  
  30 Oct 2014 11:55:33am
  
  Keith
  
  Tony Abbott's daughter's scholarship detail were obtained in a similar way.
  And that was on the Drum for weeks. All negative on the PM.
  All minor to me. But here we now have the Drum defending.
  The usual bias shows out.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - hidi:
    
    30 Oct 2014 12:31:03pm
    
    Gregory: You have hit on very good and important point. I believe the ABC bias really shows on issues like this. Abbott and his daughter were not treated well here all but a captains pick can do no wrong and the ABC pulls out all stops to gloss it over. Nothing to see here INDEED !!
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Solartations:
      
      30 Oct 2014 6:24:59pm
      
      Terry Barnes "was senior personal adviser to two federal health ministers, Michael Wooldridge (1993-97) and Tony Abbott (2003-07)."
      
      How is this article ABC bias? This is the writers opinion whose credentials I would have thought would find favor with you! Mr Abbott and his daughter deserved the scrutiny. Nova Peris does not.
      
      The only bias evident is in what you and many others write!
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - dubious the third:
    
    30 Oct 2014 2:58:06pm
    
    Elected politicians are required to declare all gifts they receive in the course of their highly remunerated employment.
    That the incumbent PM did not mention anything about this on the register, and now that it can be seen to have been more gift than anything else, people have a right to know.
    Whereas the reported goings on when Peris managed to get a good deal for taxpayers, before she became a politician, is just part of the current witch-hunt.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- Zing:
  
  30 Oct 2014 12:54:58pm
  
  Keith.
  
  If a person represents me in Parliament and gets paid by my tax, then anything relating to their personal morality and judgement is my business - since it relates to my decision to elect them.
  
  I don't care if a person is a corrupt racist who lies and cheats on their spouse. But I don't want them representing me in Parliament, where their perfidy can do me harm.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - dubious the third:
    
    30 Oct 2014 3:07:50pm
    
    I'd like to know which candidates running for election have diagnosed mental illness, but I don't see the current crop of politicians enacting legislation to allow voters to make informed choices about wanting to vote for sane people.
    
    Something about privacy.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Zing:
      
      30 Oct 2014 3:39:13pm
      
      Your proposal is actually a good idea. I'd support it.
      
      At any rate, the fact that information is private doesn't stop it being relevant to other people's decisions. That's why privacy isn't absolute.
      
      It's also worth pointing out that mental illness isn't a matter of choice. Lying, cheating and racism are far worse flaws, since they result from a conscious decision.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
- Mike:
  
  30 Oct 2014 1:40:04pm
  
  Not "again". There is a difference.
  
  Peris' emails was genuinely private, sent and received using a private service. There was a genuine expectation of privacy.
  
  Spurr's emails were NOT private. They were sent from a university computer using a university email address. The university's ICT policy explicitly states that there is NO expectation of privacy when using university computer equipment.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - JTragic:
    
    30 Oct 2014 2:19:23pm
    
    If she were using her private email service to do official work, I should hope her employers would have either reimbursed her for part of her private internet access fees and/or overtime work outside of office hours.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - DangerMouse:
    
    30 Oct 2014 2:36:01pm
    
    are you suggesting that if a private email account is used for work/business purposes then everything is private and untouchable? we don't know all the facts yet obviously, but i would have thought that as a general principle if someone uses a private email account to conduct business over, then those emails cease to have a 'private' character. they would immediately be of interest to any employer, whether there is personal material contained in them or not.
    
    an employer would have every right to know what you have communicated to others via your private email account that relates to their business/organisation. otherwise there would be dodgy deals everywhere done behind the thin veil of "oh but i was using my gmail account".
    
    Reply Alert moderator
John:

30 Oct 2014 11:00:25am

Her emails seem top suggest that the visit was designed and motivated to suit personal goals.

The fact that she got her proposal approved by others may be based on merit or the fact that she had connections.

This may be standard modus operandi but it is not right.

Their is far too much mateship deals in government and business. The thing with government money is that it ours.

There is far to much patronage by the two political cartels in this country that sees deals like this being the norm and political and public sector offices stacked with friends and affiliates.

Just to add some colour lets throw in the example of the gay mafia in certain government departments.

Reply Alert moderator
- Roginald Melon:
  
  30 Oct 2014 12:04:05pm
  
  I agree, I found the casual sense of entitlement, the use of the term "black money" and the shonky way this deal was done quite concerning. I imagine the same sort of grubby deals are done throughout the sporting community with tax payer money, nothing to with race. I do however suspect the soft handling of this particular issue is completely due to race.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
frangipani:

30 Oct 2014 11:20:02am

In general, I agree with Green's point (that may be a first!). Both had their right to privacy, and any claim to there being a "public interest" in the publication of their private communications was and is tenuous, to say the least.

That said, I'm a bit appalled that a considerable amount of taxpayer money, including apparently some from indigenous organizations as well as from Athletics Australia, was used to bring an athlete to Australia for a few clinics. It seems to me to be in the fine tradition of splashing money at aborigines, getting lots of publicity, and delivering very little in the way of meaningful, longer term outcomes. Wouldn't it have been possible to use the money, not to lure a foreign athlete here for 10 days, but to perhaps have a longer and more enduring program run by Australian athletes. For example, Nova Peris?

Reply Alert moderator
Losimpson:

30 Oct 2014 11:21:10am

It's not right to compare Peris and Spurr. Spurr used his employer's facilities and wrote stuff which throws into doubt his appropriateness for his role with government. Peres apparently had an attraction to Bolden but she did not spend public money on employing him. She simply made a case for Athletics Australia to employ him. The final decision was up to them.

We need to hear a more thorough explanation from Peres before we start throwing stones.

Reply Alert moderator
- Peter the Lawyer:
  
  30 Oct 2014 3:38:22pm
  
  "wrote stuff which throws into doubt his appropriateness for his role with government"
  
  Where do people get this line from? Is it an ALP talking point?
  
  Saying that Spurr was not suitable for the curriculum job, which he has already finished, because of the emails is like saying that a batsman isn't suitable for a cricket team because he has red hair.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Noel Conway:
    
    30 Oct 2014 5:10:48pm
    
    You are joking, right? Spurr is responsible for teaching our young people in very important areas. His personal views are out of touch and disturbing for a person in his position. Certainly the information that has come out on his personal views about things such as race and sex are a cause for real concern. It certainly does reflect on his suitability for the role that he is currently appointed to.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - Ann:
    
    30 Oct 2014 5:15:15pm
    
    No, it's like saying a batsman that's going to play against Indian isn't suitable because he's a known racist against Indians. And we don't want to encourage that sort of thing.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
Melena:

30 Oct 2014 11:21:28am

Are you serious! Are we expected to accept that the controversy over the content of these alleged emails is nothing but white noise? I would argue that if these are a true and correct copy of Nova's emails she should resign from the Senate. Her position is simply untenable. Even if accusations of misappropriation of funds cannot be proved she has made it very clear that she was willing to use her position and taxpayer money for personal gain. We just had a Premier resign over a bottle of wine and yet we have people defending this Senator.

What equally concerns me is the lack of coverage by the ABC on the racist comments and divisive racial overtones in the emails? Again why is this Federal Senator excused or absolved from being confronted with such repulsive racial exploitation.
Again, if these email are true this Senator needs to resign. This would be proof enough that she is not a fit and proper person to hold such a high office. She would be no better than Jackie Lambie!

Reply Alert moderator
- Jonno B:
  
  30 Oct 2014 12:14:11pm
  
  Completely agree.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- 4892:
  
  30 Oct 2014 1:45:28pm
  
  +1 agree.
  
  Peris has used her position to influence a professional situation for personal advantage at the public's expense.
  
  Who else was in the running for such a visit? Was there a selection panel? What were the criteria? On the available information it's extremely unprofessional and unethical.
  
  Of course AA are going to say they were happy with Boldon's visit - what else could they say? They're ass-covering and laying low. Complaining would inflame the situation and make them look like dupes.
  
  Her comments on race and public money reflect more personally on Peris herself and paint a pretty ugly picture, and in many ways quite sad. She seemed disappointed that Boldon would not come to Australia unless he made a lot of money out of it, rather than to see her. It was embarrassing to read. Given her stupidity in doing all this her comments regarding Cathy Freeman are somewhat ironic.
  
  Spurr just shouldn't be in his advisory job, simple as that.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Alex Read:
  
  30 Oct 2014 2:18:47pm
  
  Barry O'Farrell was not forced to resign over a bottle of wine. He chose to quit after it became apparent that he misled ICAC.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Melena:
    
    30 Oct 2014 3:08:12pm
    
    Splitting hairs are we? Yes he misled the commission but the bottle (or undeclared donation) is what the commission was after in the first place!
    
    No -one can force Nova to resign, she too should make this decision on her own! It is wise for two reasons; one it will show she is remorseful and therefore accepts admirably that it was wrong (on so many levels) and two, she will remain a target and distraction for the Liberal Party for years to come.
    So for the sake of her own reputation and the sake of the Labor movement she should resign!
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- Evan Giles:
  
  30 Oct 2014 4:50:46pm
  
  Utter rubbish she was not a politician at the time so this has no bearing on her senate seat
  
  The people that she spoke to evidently thought it was a good idea from a PR perspective and what they got up to in their spare time is none of their or your business
  
  You like all the rest of the Liberal/Conservatives here are sanctimonious hypocrites
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Melena:
    
    30 Oct 2014 5:53:27pm
    
    Is it not hypocritical for any person of any political persuasion to ignore or worse defend the content of these emails simply because they were a couple of years ago? This is about character and if true the emails have exposed our Senators disturbing bigoted views. It has exposed that she is willing to use taxpayer money for personal benefit. It is completely irrelevant that she was not a Senator at the time she was in fact a public servant who are bound by very similar obligations.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
Yas:

30 Oct 2014 11:23:50am

Many commenters don't appear to have read the published emails.
What she wrote is quite concerning particularly in view of her drive to manipulate the use of public money and her view that 'white people hate black people in this country'.
The main reason this is concerning is she is a Senator who represents a myriad of races in the NT.
I think her views were private and I understand she would never have intended them to be published. But, it was from a work email address, and if you send something from a work email, you must realise that it is kept forever.. Searchable.. Available...

Do I feel sorry for her children? Yes. But there is something to be seen here. We hold those in public office to a higher standard... It's life. Recently it seems people in public office have forgotten that they are representatives of the people and thus expected to be model citizens. In order to not end up with a series of lying, false politicians, we the people must demand a high standard from the people we pay with our taxes.
Who you are in private informs who you are in public. And in public office you will be held accountable for ALL of your views.
Private or Public.

Reply Alert moderator
Clownfish:

30 Oct 2014 11:24:59am

There is nothing improper about organising your private life around work commitments, maybe, but there is something very improper about using public money to fund one's private life.

Reply Alert moderator
Ursus Augustus:

30 Oct 2014 11:29:00am

Taking the emails as read, clearly Nova Peris was "besotted with"/lusted after Ado Bolton. So far private business.

She was married with children to her husband of the time. Still private business but a bit yuk.

She held a position with Athletics Australia and obviously had other influence through her indigenous identity. Wanted to attract Bolton to Oz for legit purposes. Public money and public organisation involved hence a public issue but no drama by itself, in fact quite OK, part of her job.

Mix the three and the compound is very different. I too indulge myself in private recreation when travelling for business. I do not however expect my client's to pay for anything more that the travel and accomodation expenses and a basic per diem. For the record I do not cheat on my partner and by implication our children and their stable family life. Even if I did it is another thing for the "per diem" to include great sex with expensive prostitutes or old girlfriends in luxury surrounds or anything remotely as self indulgent, sexual or otherwise. It is those dimensions that make it grubby and essentially corrupt.

Peris is compromised beyond redemption IMO if the basic facts turn out to be along the lines the emails suggest. She wanted him over in particular so they could bang each other senseless basically at the public's expense and in an act of marital treachery not just on her husband but also the family integrity affecting her children. NOT qualities one would seek in a Senator.

It is little surprise to me that Nova Peris was a Gillard "captain's pick". Expressing confidence in Craig Thompson and explaining away the AWU matter as her just being young and naive were her responses to those instances. Peris saying she has done nothing wrong is straight out of the same section of the grub's playbook IMO.

Terry, your rationale for Peris's 'innocence' sounds pretty much like Craig Thompson's.

Reply Alert moderator
OUB :

30 Oct 2014 11:34:11am

Fair comment Terry. I trust you did not concoct reasons to visit Melbourne and that those trips were organised by others for work-related purposes.

I would be happy to see both sets of leakers of the private emails identified and, if appropriate, prosecuted.

The contents of both sets of emails cast Spurr and Peris in a very poor light. No doubt the uni will be investigating whether Spurr's expressed views carry over to real life and reflect on his ability to carry out his work in an impartial and fair way. To demand professionalism of a poet seems incongruous.

Peris's emails raise the question whether she can impartially and fairly represent all Territorians. That is something for preselectors and voters to decide. I agree her libido-driven comments are not a matter for public discussion and also agree it seems she has not misused taxpayer funds. I hope she gave the relevant authorities providing the funding a heads up on her friendship when she passed the hat around - they may well feel aggrieved if she did not. But it seems there was a successful outcome for all involved.

Reply Alert moderator
Freddy:

30 Oct 2014 11:35:35am

Whatever she does in her private life is her business, but if she has used taxpayers' money over and above what was absolutely necessary -- and that includes taxpayers' money from the Aboriginal community -- then she should be held accountable. The emails suggest that he held out for more money and she raised it.

The flaw in Terry Barnes argument is his as-yet untested assertion that he assumes (just because nothing so far has been published to the contrary) that there has not been any impropriety on her part.

She may be completely innocent, but the jury's still out on that.

Reply Alert moderator
Calypso:

30 Oct 2014 11:35:41am

There's a bizarre "quality" to this article, and looking at the comments published so far, it is another occasion I notice that with one exception, all of the contributors are in favour of the author and all are unfamiliar names. So what made you good folk suddenly tune into The Drum for the first time today? And the author just happens to be a publicity consultant. But there would be no organised trolling here, would there?

To describe New Matilda as "self-righteously dressing up their motives" speaks volumes of the author but not of New Matilda, and his attempts at spin are desperate and laughable. Are we honestly to believe that the offence here is one against the Western literary canon? Supposedly the good folk of New Matilda are far more concerned with his "crudeness" rather than the inhumane and insidious effects of racism.

New Matilda is an independent news outlet relying on donations. It has nothing to gain financially by "titillation."

The "shut right up because the emails were private" defence doesn't work either. As many other contributors who work for universities have noted, there is no such thing as private emails sent through university addresses when you work them, and that is made very clear to employees.

And no buddy, you don't get to decide what "the bottom line" or "end of story" is. We'll think for ourselves, thanks very much.

Reply Alert moderator
whogoesthere:

30 Oct 2014 11:37:33am

I was more intrigued by the comments she made about Cathy Freeman. Particulalry because if she was a white person I'd expect there'd be howls of outrage about how she was being 'racist'.

Some people should realise that if you make insulting comments about another person, just because they may be a different race, or from a different culture from you they are not automatically racist. The racism tag gets flung about much too readily these days.

It's not only incorrect use of the word, it also belittles the experiences of people who really do suffer from racism. Calling a person dumb may be nasty, but it that's a different thing entirely.

Reply Alert moderator
NgWallco:

30 Oct 2014 11:46:05am

My God this article makes so much sense. Thank you.

Reply Alert moderator
John:

30 Oct 2014 11:49:49am

Yes, I totally agree with you.

Reply Alert moderator
gbe:

30 Oct 2014 11:51:24am

Just reading some of the comments on Nova Peris. I was wondering if she would be getting the same support if she were a liberal Senator instead of Julia's captains pick. People can be a little biased here.

Reply Alert moderator
wizeowl:

30 Oct 2014 11:55:07am

Has anyone actually thought of the ramifications of hacking into someone's private emails? Isn't this like raiding your letterbox and reading your private mail? Isn't this a crime in the strictly legal sense? In the USA you go to jail for this, probably in Australia the law books declare there are serious consequences as well. So this creep - whoever he is - reads and PUBLISHES someone's private correspondence and gets away with it, in the self-righteous justification that taxpayers' money was misused by Ms. Peris - give me a break. Let's see the 'justifications' of thieves, murderers, embezzlers - GENUINE crooks - be accepted in such moralistic fashion by the courts.
If the emails of a certain professor employed by a disgraceful government to 'improve' the education system were leaked and exposed him for the racist, sexist, misogynist bigot he is - I have a scintilla of sympathy for this because this man is going to be recommending that TAXPAYERS' MONEY be used in educating our kids - this from a man who defies most educational institutions' strictures about racism, intolerance, sexism, etc. But the legal/moral implications still stand.

Reply Alert moderator
Arthur J:

30 Oct 2014 11:55:21am

There are 1000's of small sporting clubs struggling for money that rely on unpaid volunteers to keep them afloat. There are rafts of legislation to be adhered, council ordinances and the ever spiraling costs associated with (to name but two) electricity and water that have to be addressed by 1000's of volunteers who organise their lives for the good of these clubs. Organising a sporting grant from a position of privilege that includes a little personal dalliance is a step beyond.

Reply Alert moderator
- Reader:
  
  30 Oct 2014 12:58:57pm
  
  I agree with this too. So much money is invested in professional sport, which might "inspire" some kids but really most people just watch it on the telly. Meanwhile community sports clubs - the place where there is widespread benefit to physical and mental health for a lot of people - struggle with underfunding and are often kept alive by the enormous dedication of overworked volunteers.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
JAL:

30 Oct 2014 11:56:47am

Hacking of peoples emails is wrong and to do so should require a warrant just the same as a phone tap issued under suspicion of some wrong doing. Any other time it should be a criminal offence.

But the left cant really say or do much about this, last week when they hacked someones email to make political point they opened up this sort of horrible political one-upmanship and made email hacking fair game.

I didn't hear to many of these ABC left opinion writers defending the right to privacy on emails related to the racist professor, especially given the content was just offensive but not suggest any wrong doing which is different to these emails, when they had the chance to try and stop this sordid at all cost political stitch up game.

You reap what you sow I am afraid.

And before you all get uppity, I am talking about the importance that emails are kept private and not be used for political advantage, not the content or the author.

Police with warrants should only get access to emails, all others should face criminal charges if caught hacking

Reply Alert moderator
- Johnny:
  
  30 Oct 2014 5:20:44pm
  
  Good point regarding the phone hacking JAL, I don't see how this is any different. It's the UK phone hacking scandal for the next generation.
  
  Neither story is big enough to warrant a public interest defence. They're both a bit crass but we're entitled to behave crassly in private.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Harlequin:

30 Oct 2014 11:58:11am

It's no surprise to any of us that media today - regardless of format - places just as much emphasis on circulation and viewer numbers, as it does on truth and accuracy. Arguably more. Much media exists simply to make money, not to inform. So should we be surprised that articles such as these are given oxygen? No.

Did she misuse tax payer monies? Probably not. All stakeholders seem quite happy with the outcome. I don't think that's a story with any legs. Personal opinion, admittedly.

However, what I would consider to be the real issue here is whether or not we as voters should expect our elected politicians to be held to higher standards. I say yes. Whether or not her actions relate to a time before she entered politics is immaterial to my mind. Her actions - if proven to be true - speak directly to her character, regardless of her occupation at the time.

The level of political dialogue in this country, together with the quality of political decisions that result can only ever reflect the quality of the people we accept as politicians. I know we can only vote for those who are put before us each election - and admittedly, there's not often a lot of quality to select from - but as an electorate the 'raising of the bar' needs to start with us. For a start, we can push back against the cynical exercise of political parties parachuting people such as Peris ( and Peter Garrett ) into political positions, not based on any apparent ability to perform in the role, but simply because of their 'profile'. Sportspeople and musicians can't simply walk into any other job - why should we accept that they can walk into one as important as politics?

Reply Alert moderator
- Rhonda:
  
  30 Oct 2014 5:34:11pm
  
  "Why should we accept that they can walk into one as important as politics/"
  
  For the same reason as we have seen a failed priest/'journalist'/second-rate political adviser rise to the rank of Prime Minister, I guess - we are a democracy. The yardstick can be applied both ways, not just to suit one side of politics...
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - OUB :
    
    30 Oct 2014 5:54:11pm
    
    Have you ever been so impartial Rhonda? I can't recall it if you have. Even here you use your yardstick to belabourAbbott around the head, though he has nothing to do with Peris's problems.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Rhonda:
      
      30 Oct 2014 6:42:56pm
      
      OUB, I will be impartial when I see fit. To date, I have seen little evidence to invite that. As I recall, I also decried the release of Barry Spurr's private emails and challenged their authenticity. However, I also was rightly concerned that if they were verified as true, how much influence he had in holding those views, regarding the education review he was tasked to undergo. A genuine concern, I would have thought?
      
      With this latest 'sleaze-fest', Athletics Australia have clearly stated that a position was decided on merit, the sprinter Ato Boldon performed his required duties in that position in a very creditable way, the children benefitted by the program - in other words, no wrong was done. Private emails should remain private.
      
      As for Tony Abbott - I was merely using a factual example - in reply to a question about who should become politicians. It's the type of comment TA would relish, if he was the one making it! Don't be so precious...
      
      Reply Alert moderator
spud:

30 Oct 2014 11:59:29am

It is not a matter of organising your private life around work. In this case, it is a matter of whether or not the needs or desires of your private life have been funded either out of your employer's pocket, or out of the public purse, or both. Both are in some circumstances actually crimes. Do you remember a person called Craig Thomson for example?

Reply Alert moderator
- Rhonda:
  
  30 Oct 2014 5:41:44pm
  
  Spud, there is no evidence whatsoever to support your inference regarding Nova Peris.
  
  I certainly do remember Craig Thomson and I'll pass judgement when the findings are made with regard to Kathy Jackson's alleged wrongdoings tallying well over the $1 million mark. That would be Tony Abbott's "brave and courageous 'whistleblower'" Kathy Jackson, whom he regularly promoted to bring down Craig Thomson, in yet another (failed) attempt to destroy the Gillard government.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
firthy:

30 Oct 2014 12:06:01pm

Excelent article - I couldn't agree more.

Reply Alert moderator
hidi:

30 Oct 2014 12:19:25pm

Well maybe there is something to see here after all. Terry Barrie has decided Nova Peris put forward a business proposition and it was excepted. Excepted by who and why was it excepted when the position had not been advertised. Appears to be all very under the table to me looks like a job for a favourite endorsed by a captains pick.

Reply Alert moderator
- Evan Giles:
  
  30 Oct 2014 4:44:26pm
  
  We won't say anything about the scholarship given to Abbott's daughter will we then Hidi
  
  Hypocrisy knows no bounds with idiot Liberal/Conservatives
  
  Just as stupid as allowing 1000 people to apply for 80 jobs of which most of them will be filled in house anyway
  
  This happened a lot with the railways and over recruitment was rife in the NSWMFB ( New South Wales Metro Fire Brigade ) so much so that at one stage new recruits were waiting 18 months before being posted to a station
  
  Not to mention the over recruitment of nurses as well
  
  Reply Alert moderator
foolking:

30 Oct 2014 12:42:24pm

Sounded like she saved us 5 grand and everyone was happy with the blokes efforts, surely this one will backfire and the exposer will cop it.

Reply Alert moderator
John1:

30 Oct 2014 12:43:13pm

"There is nothing improper about organising your private life around your work commitments - I've done it myself."

You have offered to try and organise a government funded grant to someone you wanted to see personally before have you?

That's interesting, when and where did this take place, I'm sure there are a few people who would be mightily interested in that tale!

Reply Alert moderator
Zathras:

30 Oct 2014 1:09:38pm

The Peris thing smells like a bit of payback for the Spurr revelation.

If they want a real story, I think their time would be better spent investigating all pollies for their travel rorts.

Reply Alert moderator
- Rhonda:
  
  30 Oct 2014 5:44:44pm
  
  Especially those who profit by performing 'charity' stunts - which amount to little more than election campaigning/self-promotion, which we taxpayers pay for...
  
  Reply Alert moderator
get real :

30 Oct 2014 1:24:52pm

Terry mate, speak for (about) yourself!
The whole business was rotten and corrupt from start to the now -ie from when the star was selected by a most non democratic process. Come to think of it that is what the senate is about anyway-non representative persons making decisions that unfortunately affect us all -and we have no say!
GR

Reply Alert moderator
Reader1:

30 Oct 2014 1:46:57pm

You make a false equivalence between Peris and Spurr in order to lessen the significance of the latter - you never did return to the Spurr topic after raising it. The difference is, firstly New Matilda came by the emails via a third party whistleblower whereas someone seems to have gone to the trouble of targeting Peris. And to no political end. Spurr's decision-making in his government reporting reflects fairly accurately a polished up version of the views in the emails. The joke thing is a nebulous excuse which could be verified or disproven easily one would think but no further information seems to be forthcoming. Nevertheless, his emails strongly suggest someone not fit to hold a senior position at a major university still less be in a position to determine an entire education curriculum.

Peris has not ripped anyone off, least of all taxpayers. Abbott spent over $90,000 on patently illegal work expenses, including all of his charity work and a book promotional tour. But he's the one in power so apparently it's fine.

Reply Alert moderator
John:

30 Oct 2014 1:57:54pm

I cannot agree with you any more.

Reply Alert moderator
- OUB :
  
  30 Oct 2014 3:54:41pm
  
  Deliberately ambiguous? Do you mean you can never agree with the writer ever again or do you mean you're with him all the way?
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Get Real:

30 Oct 2014 2:02:20pm

I never cease to be amazed at people who think that an email could ever be private. It is an electronic communication readily available to a person with the necessary skills to access it. If the author does not want his/her email accessed then they should not be writing them or using some encryption. An normal email can be considered just like a letter that has been thrown in the bin and then it is free along with all the other garbage for those with interest to go through the garbage -like at the tip.
GR

Reply Alert moderator
- fredn:
  
  30 Oct 2014 4:01:55pm
  
  Get Real, indeed. Mail was always regarded as private, and all you needed to do was reach into someone's mail box, often out on the front fence, and rip it open, or use a kettle if you are being sneaky. A lot less skill needed than hacking someone's email. You half allude to this in relation to going through a rubbish bin.
  
  What has changed is the morality of some has slipped into self-serving self-justification of theft of someone-else's private communications for dubious purposes. When will we get to the point that nobody has any right to privacy?
  
  I am not questioning that we all need to use email knowing it is vulnerable to misuse, but to use an analogy just because I lock my doors to my house doesn't say that if I forget to lock up one night anyone has the right to enter and take what they want. Theft is still theft.
  
  And some on this forum have mentioned Abbott's daughter and the scholarship. The girl who used some-else's login to get that information has been prosecuted.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Craig:

30 Oct 2014 2:20:02pm

The Coalition had held fire over Peris because over half of them have done the same thing.

All parliamentarians in the major parties are worried that if they are held to the ethics standards that we should expect of our elected representatives many of them will be found wanting.

This is directly illustrated by the 25% of elected NSW Liberal MLCs who have quit parliament or stood aside from their party given ICAC appearances.

Let's face it, Australia is very poorly served by elected members from major parties and the situation is continuing to get worse as they consolidate their preselections around lobbyists, unionists and career political advisors.

We do not fix this by accepting a lower standard from our representatives, instead we hold them to account at the standard we should expected from the people elected to make decisions on OUR behalf, so they do not focus on making decisions purely on their own behalf.

Reply Alert moderator
Andy Jennings:

30 Oct 2014 2:26:22pm

The relevant viewing here is Media Watch this Monday. Very clear explanations of the relevant law.

Both the people who leaked the emails, and the people who published the stories should have watched it. They could have saved themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties.

Reply Alert moderator
Evan Giles:

30 Oct 2014 2:40:11pm

There are a couple of points here

1 She was not a senator at the time this incident took place so it has nothing to with her current role as a senator

2. No one has the right here or anywhere else to state that she had an ulterior motive for inviting this gentleman out here unless she has admitted to this openly and knowingly

3.There is nothing in the article about how or where the emails were obtained and since their release was evidently done with malicious intent then the person who released them may well be prosecuted

4 Under the law of contract an offer was made to Party A by Party b through a third party C all party's to the agreement were aware of how, when and where if any money was to be payed
therefore there has been no laws broken and whether it was taxpayer's or her own used is actually irrelevant unless the money was not accounted for and since she was employed by an organisation which was government funded then I assume hopefully the money was properly accounted for by said organisation and it wasn't her responsibility to make the account

While I don't care one iota if she ended up banging the said gentleman the only thing that needs to be asked is has any money been properly accounted for if it has then the case is closed and all the moralising hypocrites posting here should just shut up and get life

Reply Alert moderator
- Lexx:
  
  30 Oct 2014 4:09:08pm
  
  1. We expect a senator to have integrity, trustworthiness and good judgement, so matters that illuminate whether those are the case are absolutely relevant.
  
  2. It is obvious from her own comments and that of Boldon's contained in the e-mails that their relationship was a primary factor in the trip. Boldon's explanation of the purpose of the trip started with "purpose of trip is time with u (sic)". Sending of nude photos, comments about specifics of what kind of sexual activities they expected etc. Blind Freddy stuff.
  
  3. How the e-mails came to light is scarcely relevant to Peris's actions.
  
  4. There is an element of good faith on the part of Party A based on a trust in Party C who had an undisclosed personal benefit in the arrangement and therefore a conflict of interests.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Angry Weasel:

30 Oct 2014 3:08:15pm

The concluding remarks by Terry are morally appalling!

"There is nothing to see here!" he says -- Hmmm, sounds like a guilt complex, a sort of unconscious denial that issues such as these can be brought into public view, and are treated as "serious" journalism.

Dr Spurr is NOT guilty for the main reason that his emails are his private feelings, not intended for public consumption, and secondly, and most importantly -- he's not guilty due to the fact that NOBODY can demonstrate that his emails have in fact hurt or harmed someone!

It's not that Spurr has been "mightily humiliated" in public -- that would be paying too much tribute to the gazing public which seems to have a passionate interest to peep into other people's private life and their emails.

Reply Alert moderator
Janusk:

30 Oct 2014 3:08:50pm

Whether or not Nova was having an affair with Ato is irrelevant other than for the impact it had on her in conflicting her with her responsibilities as an ambassador for Athletics Australia. There is nothing wrong with trying to mix your personal life with your work or business life - however, if you are promoting something to your employer or the organisation you are working with and there is a chance that you could benefit from it personally, in any way, you have a clear conflict of interest. This is not to say that Nova should not have encourage Athletics Australia to use Ato and pay him but she should have declared any personal interest she had. Not only is it the right thing to do when dealing with other people's money - it is the smart thing! You never know when someone might find a link between your decision or what you were promoting and your private life - as Nova is finding out. How much easier this would have been for her if AA was able to come out and say that they were aware of the relationship because Nova had disclosed it to them - and not just say they were happy with what Ato presented. If Nova had declared her conflict of interest - this would be a minor story and dead by now.

Reply Alert moderator
Brenda:

30 Oct 2014 3:16:03pm

Thank you what a wonderful article.
Nova has done nothing wrong. There is nothing wrong with her planning his trip or hooking up with him. Everyone does it if they travel for work! Nova is still a competent Senator.

Reply Alert moderator
Solomon:

30 Oct 2014 3:20:11pm

The morality of breaking in to other people's emails and other private communications seem largely guided by a person's partisan politics. The Greens were 'outraged' by leaks about refugee advocates grooming refugees to fake behaviours; Lefties thought is was fair game to break into Frances Abbott's private files in order to try to embarrass her dad; now folks are saying its unfair to break into Nova Peris emails (one of Gillard's favourite picks).... its all about who's side you're on. Nothing noble, moral, or ethical from any sides of politics here... but a worrying amorality for this age.

Reply Alert moderator
DangerMouse:

30 Oct 2014 3:22:06pm

Terry, I think you have the cart before the horse. Your example about work in Melbourne is a work trip that had to be done, and on your own time while there you engage in personal conduct. No one would have any issue with that.

The problem here, on the face of it without further facts and I'm surprised you can't pick this up, is that it seems like a business venture using tax payer funds motivated by personal interest (and quite sleazy interest at that). If it is all a fabrication or no wrong doing was committed then great, but it does warrant a look given the position of the person involved.

Reply Alert moderator
Save the Krill:

30 Oct 2014 3:45:29pm

Many people seem to be very upset about the racism running through Peris' communications. More importantly, though, is the story behind the story. Who got access to the alleged emails, and in what circumstances? The first day it broke, there were some saying it was a Labor initiative to do her harm. I don't believe it, by the way, but it is an important question to answer. No matter how degraded a person is, this would cause anyone huge anguish and says a lot about the person or people who lit the fuse on this.

Reply Alert moderator
- OUB :
  
  30 Oct 2014 4:35:51pm
  
  Peris suggests it was part of a matrimonial dispute.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Get Real:

30 Oct 2014 3:51:52pm

Andy,
I did not see the program and don't believe in any case that the ABC media watch would be the source of all wisdom. However you may be technically correct if someone had the matter considered in a court. But that was not my point. If you don't want people to real your emails either don't write them or have them encrypted. Chasing something through the courts as you indicated is usually a waste of money -and only fattens the lawyers.
It would be interesting to compare the law on emails with that of a faxed copyrighted faxed letter. My understanding is that this is clear as there is a law to cover this situation. But is an email copyright anyway? Cannot it simply be blank copied or sent on?
GR

Reply Alert moderator
- bruce:
  
  30 Oct 2014 4:49:14pm
  
  I don't know the circumstances of Peris' email but if Spurr was using his Uni account and email address then he ought to have something like the following: "PLEASE NOTE
  The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you." at the bottom of the email. That makes it clear that the contents are confidential and no-one has the right to make them public (including the recipient). The university IT people do check email for content that might bring the uni into disrepute and the uni can act to discipline staff who misuse the system but that is not something that allows publication of the contents of an email. Yes, people can hack your emails but provided a statement of confidentiality is attached then publication does have legal consequences for the publisher.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
IanM:

30 Oct 2014 4:29:00pm

Amazing that out of 100 comments so far, only one has so far used the phrase which correctly identifies the potential problem here - conflict of interest. Sad but true. Terry Barnes certainly didn't use it, but well done Janusk for seeing through the confusion. Perhaps Terry Barnes can't see that meeting someone on your own time who doesn't benefit financially from your employer is different from having a relationship with someone who is benefitting financially from your employer on your recommendation.

In Peris's case it is unclear if a relationship developed far enough to qualify as a conflict of interest. However in most organisations, if you are having a relationship with someone who may benefit financially from that organisation, you are required to declare that conflict of interest and stand aside from those recommendations and decisions. As a responsible organisation, perhaps the ABC should explain this to Terry Barnes.

Reply Alert moderator
Chris Z:

30 Oct 2014 4:41:16pm

'Did Spurr deserve to be suspended from the University of Sydney because of his private, if unwise, emails'

Spurr's emails are a prima facie breach of section 5 (a) of the University of Sydney's Policy on the use of its ICT Resources:

?The University will not tolerate its ICT Resources being used in a manner that is
harassing, discriminatory, abusive, rude, insulting, threatening, obscene or
otherwise inappropriate.?

He may or may not deserve to be suspended, but he certainly has a case to answer.

Reply Alert moderator
reubenthedog:

30 Oct 2014 4:52:21pm

Great work Terry and the ABC , another gloss over and touch up. If the story was about someone from the Libs you would have them nailed to the cross. Your articles show more bias than a lawn bowl.

Reply Alert moderator
- OUB :
  
  30 Oct 2014 5:11:07pm
  
  Terry Barnes is a rightie as far as I can tell. So am I. Unless you want to be a non-Iranian morality policeman I don't see this as a major issue, just as I thought the lefties' attempts at beating up previous incidents involving conservatives were no big deal. Remember all the frothing by The Yank and others about how Abbott's alleged wall punch showed his true character and damned him forever? It was all BS. So why seek to prosecute Peris here? She seems to have been foolish, who hasn't? Leave it to the preselectors and NT voters to sort out. I think she only has a three year term to turn around impressions people may have of her.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
lexmc:

30 Oct 2014 4:58:17pm

What an unseemly mess, the emails appear to be genuine enough, whether the funds organised constitute misuse of funds is up to the entity that provided them, but I can't help recalling the worrds of Craig Thompson which were, let me see, oh yes "I have done nothing wrong".

Peris appears to have insulted her friends, accused our whole nation of racism, cheated on her husnband, used foul language and possibly misused funds but has done nothing wrong!

Reply Alert moderator
Noel Conway:

30 Oct 2014 5:04:38pm

There is the case against New Matilda that is to do with the right to privacy. Surely that right is even more clear in this case.

There is a "suggestion" that there "may" have been "some" wrongdoing, but it is certainly not clear if there was wrongdoing, and if there was wrongdoing, it seems to be very minor indeed.

But what has been leaked (illegally obtained emails) is particularly private and personal stuff that does not reflect on anything to do with Nova or her ability to do her job, unlike the New Matilda case where there is the real possibility that the damaging leaks reflect on the personal ability of the person to continue in his job.

This is tacky and sloppy journalism. There is no assertion that Nova is not fit for office, or has done anything that reflects upon her office, and revealing intimate details about her personal relations and her personal views on others (a totally private matter) is simply nasty and vindictiveness. It is not in the public interest, and if the suggestion of wrongdoing is felt sufficient to warrant this infringement on Nova's personal life then i suggest those responsible for leaking and publishing this material take it to the police for a proper investigation, rather than publish it nationwide in trashy journalism of the worst kind.

Reply Alert moderator
- OUB :
  
  30 Oct 2014 5:40:17pm
  
  My impression, for what it is worth, is that the idea of politicians having a sex life tends to get people excited (eg the Qld politician whose old fella had a drinking problem that his girlfriend chose to share with the world. No one's business. End of career). If such a story is combined with even a hint of abuse of public moneys stand back, the blue touchpaper has been ignited.
  
  Of course the private stuff reflects on Peris. Whether it reflects on her ability to do the job is another issue. Probably not. Her abilities and vulnerabilities should have been apparent when she was made the captain's pick - a leaked email would have little bearing on that. You could argue that they showed difficulties in separating public money from private purposes but that is less than clear-cut. But you are in no better position to reflect on Spurr's suitability.
  
  I agree there does not appear to have been an assertion Peris is shown to be unfit for office. Readers are apparently left to draw their own conclusions, or at least enjoy being titillated by reading of other's embarrassments. But nastiness and vindictiveness have always had a place in politics. If you decry it here you should be less judgmental when it involves people from your non-preferred side of politics. And particularly their daughters.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Huonian:

30 Oct 2014 5:08:02pm

Perhaps it's time to start publishing the private emails of the slimeball journos at the NT News and New Matilda. Give them a taste of it.

I hope Spurr and Peris sue the bejeezus out of these awful rags.

In the end, the victims of the UK's "News of the World" managed to destroy it - and the careers of a few of the sleazy journos in the process. A bit of that wouldn't go amiss here in Australia

Reply Alert moderator
lizzieborden:

30 Oct 2014 5:19:15pm

Talk about unrepresentative swill. Swill being the operative word. Well done Julia Gillard, you've given us a senator who used her publicly paid position to achieve her social ends. I hope she got a bang for our buck. Nova Peris has alternately claimed that the emails were private and that the emails were fake. Well, which are they? The emails cannot be both private and fake.

Reply Alert moderator
- Asparagus:
  
  30 Oct 2014 5:49:51pm
  
  The Murdoch Press is being true to it's lack of ethics by smearing the reputation of Nova Peris with unsubstantiated allegations. Unrepresentative swill indeed.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Gary Parker:

30 Oct 2014 5:26:13pm

It seems to me to be a double standard to blast a Sydney University Professor for his dodgy racist language in private emails that become public and then give a Senator a pass for similar colourful language in private text messages that became public.

Reply Alert moderator
- Michael:
  
  30 Oct 2014 7:03:51pm
  
  This is their ABC so it is definitely not seen as double standards. Just imagine if Tony Abbott behaved in the same way it would be dragged up all the time like his past is.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
MJB:

30 Oct 2014 5:26:24pm

Well said and I agree.

It seems to be too common in this country that rather than devote the time to critique someone's viewpoint properly, we would much rather dig up something embarrassing about them so we can dismiss them entirely. Gutless.

Reply Alert moderator
Angela:

30 Oct 2014 5:29:35pm

Peris is just being true to her ethics.
To be a Labor politician you need to have a complete disregard for public money. So using it to win the favour of a lover is not at all outside the scope of socialist politicians.

Reply Alert moderator
- Asparagus:
  
  30 Oct 2014 5:39:26pm
  
  And the Murdoch Press is in the gutter where it belongs.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Michael:
    
    30 Oct 2014 7:01:00pm
    
    The gutter of cheating, lying, abusive and racist comments was created by Nova Peris herself and the Murdoch press merely reported it in the public interest.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
Christos:

30 Oct 2014 5:42:41pm

Regarding Nova Peris, The Australian Sports Commission & Australian Athletics both confirmed an audit of all monies related to this trip found all above-board & appropriate. Also Boldon has denied any romance whatsoever & the actual source emails are not available to verify the 'folder' presented by an aggrieved 3rd party to the papers. The newspapers should not have published any of it & if Peris takes the same legal action as David Spurr, she deserves to win such a case.

Similarly David Spurr deserves to win his legal case against New Matilda. But he does have a case to answer using a business email for inappropriate & offensive communications & he needs to explain the uncomfortable coincidences between his public curriculum views & his terrible email contents.

The PM's daughter's scholarship should have been a matter of public pride for the PM & the college should have been publicly thanked for their merit-based, transparent selection - with the person releasing this simply receiving a mild tut-tut. For goodness sake, why on earth is this person about to be criminally convicted & jailed as a result of making public an open, merit-based award to a proud daughter & her parents.....

Reply Alert moderator
Jaspez Perth:

30 Oct 2014 5:42:44pm

Geez, what a dull life many of you live. Sanctimonious comments only prove my point. The only reason the article was published was because she was a politician of a certain persuasion differing from that of the newspapers publishers. And what was her crime. Having an affair outside of marriage (give me a break; over half the population partake in that activity). Or was it fraud (Even the organisation behind the event denies any irregularities with their funding of Ado Bolton's visit). If the clock had turned back in time and she was still representing her country in hockey, or later as an athlete, would the editor, being the good Territorian he believes himself to be, besmirch her good name and ridicule her as he has just done; and lacking any real evidence to prove his article is fact. So go on, have your say, but have a thought that some day you too might find yourself in a similar predicament should you stray from the fold.

Reply Alert moderator
Gary P:

30 Oct 2014 5:46:51pm

The Senator's speech in the Senate was very well crafted and went well on the way to see her go from a villain to victim (the Left loves a victim). Admittedly she did have a strong hand to play with - she not only held the Gender Card but also the Minority Card, the Widow Card, the Mother Card , the I'm Only Protecting the Kids Card and somehow after playing the It's a Long Running Family Dispute Card she even mamaged to play the Race Card. Impressive !

Reply Alert moderator
savrocca:

30 Oct 2014 6:12:14pm

The emails have shone some light onto the character of Peris. Her abuse of Cathy Freeman is illustrative of the strength of her character and her loyalty. The underhand way in which she manipulated her position of influence speaks to her honesty. I bet the Labor party are happy they ditched Trish Crossin.

Reply Alert moderator
Peter:

30 Oct 2014 6:40:12pm

Gee I can hear a lot of glass breaking as so many stones are being thrown in glass houses. Time to grow up people and do not feign the indignant moral high ground. No story here. Where has privacy gone? I would like to know more how the media are getting access to personal emails.

Reply Alert moderator
JessC:

30 Oct 2014 6:42:52pm

Persuading taxpayer-funded bodies to contract your mates for lucrative positions is par for the course in politics, isn't it?

You're right, nothing to see here, move on!

Reply Alert moderator
NastyRightTurn:

30 Oct 2014 6:55:54pm

Unfortunately, there IS something to see here.

It is obvious to anyone who's been following the Barry Spurr saga.

The radical rightwing Anti-Aussie Abbott supporters are outraged that one of their big bigots has been exposed, and that his dirty work on whitewashing the curriculum has been discredited.

MediaWatch did a balanced story about how legal action over the the Spurr emails might play out, and the implications for public interest arguments by the media. The nasties gave their usual yelps of bias etc... but their two main arguments telegraphed what they'd resort to next:

(1) They said, IF its OK to expose "innocent", "harmless" Pro Barry, a poor meek public servant (*kindly ignore his role as professor and key advisor to the govt review*), then it should be OK to expose the emails of any other public servant ? eg any ABC employee (or sportsperson and future Senator).

(2) They describe as "hypocritical", the ABC and anyone else who doesn't see that exposing these Spurr emails is NO DIFFERENT to Murdoch's phone hacking scandal (where murder victims etc were fair game for a sensational story).

Never mind that there is no allegation of actual hacking in this case, or that the emails were sent on a publicly funded, non-private, work email system to various work colleagues and friends, OR that the content of the emails is directly relevant to making judgements about the suitability of Spurr to be advising on the curriculum.

Reply Alert moderator
Ben Nallay:

30 Oct 2014 7:04:39pm

After having heard her uncannily well-spoken speech to the senate about blackmail, I'm inclined to suggest that what Mrs Peris could most use to fulfil her current agenda at this stage is a good reliable shovel.

Reply Alert moderator
Regionalgranny:

30 Oct 2014 7:18:31pm

I am waiting with anticipation to see which party political, left or right, eventually calls an end to this ridiculous nonsense which has developed of trawling through politicians activities from cradle to grave trying to find something even slightly untoward, potentially illegal or downright salacious that they can bring to the public attention and so on it goes. The fact that the matter relating to the NT Senator has been published by a News Limited paper says much about some of the motives behind the decision to publish regardless of who provided the emails and their particular motives.
The current government has upped the ante by moving to official enquiries into just about everything with even a whiff of untoward conduct by opposition members and consequently burning up taxpayer dollars. I am absolutely certain, politicians being human like the rest of us, a large percentage of them would have matters in their lives which they would rather not have published in a newspaper or in any other media. I for one am not impressed by the mealy mouthed usual excuse that the public has a right to know because the subject may have misused public funds. The problem with this method of inflicting wounds on the opposite side of politics is that no one has the moral high ground and there is always likely to be some other issue which will come back to bight those who use this method of scoring political points.

Reply Alert moderator