Why it Matters in the Seismic Industry
'Corruption: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people.' ~ Merriam-Webster
'Oh, what a tangled web we weave…when first we practice to deceive.' ~ Walter Scott
What happens when human resources is corrupt?
During a down cycle in an industry, and amid times of economic uncertainty especially, corporate human resources (HR) departments can hold substantial influence over personal lives. With such influence also comes the opportunity to abuse power and wield such influence in nefarious ways. As a scientist for the majority of my career, HR served as an innocuous backdrop. HR collected my timesheets, distributed payroll slips, insurance and pension optimization plan information, and they filed assessments conducted by my supervisors. In the article, Why the Path to Ethics Starts with Human Resources, author Chris MacDonald states that HR is ground zero for company culture. I agree.
HR publishes company policy, values, and procedures. However, my benign impression of HR was completely transformed through the experience with a past employer.
Since then, I have read extensively about HR, including accounts of HR behaving badly, which opened my eyes. I have come to the conclusion that, fundamentally, HR functions to support the organization hierarchy. An HR which supports the organization hierarchy is not too surprising and is as it should be. If the hierarchy is fair and honest, so too is HR.
Conversely, however, if the hierarchy is corrupt, then so too is HR. A corrupt HR is used to purge the ranks from power liabilities, such as the honest up-and-comer on a top manager’s coat tails, or any honest person too close to the truth, such as a whistle blower, or a bully target who challenges managerial competency and integrity.
HR does not have the power to displace the corrupt hierarchy that employs them. It should be relatively simple for an ethical hierarchy to rid themselves of a knave employee.
Corrupt hierarchies are regimes who conspire, cooperate and protect one another. Fundamentally, workplace bullying is the abuse of power. Abuse of position is a category of fraud, as are false representation and withholding of information, which are all usually associated with fiduciary malfeasance, rather than the misuse and abuse of human resources.
I believe that bullies are not individuals, but regimes supported by an organization’s formal power structures. HR will shield managerial corruption and incompetence and use their legitimate guise to extricate threatening (to the corrupt or incompetent hierarchy) personnel. Within unethical and toxic organizations, a corrupt HR is empowered and enabled as the enforcer to protect the company proverbial cosa nostra. In fact, for corrupt organizations, a corrupt HR is practically essential.
For me, this prose is personal. However, what I have learned is that it
shares an all too common theme for many disenfranchised workers who
take stands against unprincipled work practices. It is the reasonable
people who are often made out to be unreasonable. I wrote about how I
came to discover, and know with certainty, about the unethical practices
of my former employer in the LinkedIn Pulse article, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data.”
[Note: Linkedin removed original Article by Steve Kalavity: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/american-uk-data-protection-act-petroleum-tyranny-steven-kalavity?trk=pulse_spock-articles]
As
an American working in England, my former marine seismic company
employer’s HR manager had the brazen audacity to create and retain an
entire mythology of my work history. I suppose it is because I upset the
hierarchy by essentially saying “enough is enough.” Without my
knowledge, and in spite of several requests for more substantive
information, the HR Manager compiled a collection of unsigned,
falsified, and forged documents which he had the imperiousness to call
my professional personnel file.
Because it is my belief that these falsehoods have been shared
throughout the HR back-channels, as I cannot conceive of any other
utility for them matching his character, I brought my knowledge of these
activities to light. There would be absolutely no advantage for me to
publish ungrounded allegations of a former employer. However, I feel
that I need to write about my experience to defend and preserve my
personal dignity and reputation for myself and my family, as well as
enlighten the broader community. I am determined to challenge the false
narrative economically focusing on the truth rather than
addressing damages in English court. Such a challenge would be time
consuming, expensive, and logistically difficult.
Also, to prove the points to any (uncertain economic) benefit is not my
priority so much as the truth of the matter. However, it would be
impossible for my previous employer to prove otherwise. Nonetheless,
the false documents and/or contents mentioned are in my possession, as
well as have been shared with UK and Norwegian government compliance
organizations, if they so choose to investigate compliance to their national laws and acts. Truth has patience.
I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed. ~ Jonathan Swift The reason that it is important to bring attention to the iniquitous
behaviors of employers within the seismic industry, or other sectors for
that matter, is because nothing is done in isolation. The companies,
employees, and communication channels are all connected. When companies
decide to pollute their company records, and the marine seismic and
larger geophysical community or sector, with false information about
ex-employees, it serves only the self-interest of incompetent or corrupt
leadership. When high level executives cooperate to use the financial
leverage provided from customers, shareholders, and other employees to
make challenging wrong-doing exceptionally difficult, these decisions
devalue every aspect of a company. Should management be able to vilify
me, or other employees, professionally when the company top executives
are the ones who lie and malign?
It is those who lack the courage to abide by the policies which they
articulate, who deceive, withhold, and then falsify documents who are
the ones that should be ashamed. And it should be the company and its
executives who condone such egregious practices that should be out of
work, and not the targets of abused power. That is how business should
work. I am directly familiar with the events which have affected me
personally. However, the culture and character of the organization
hierarchy suggests that I was likely not the first person to be the
target of such abominations. From my review of literature, this
behavior is not exceptional – unfortunately – and transcends sector and
industry.
This is the same culture and character which makes decisions about how
to handle other employees concerns contrary to their own policies and
which also forms decisions about who is to be retained or made redundant
in a down cycle. This same culture and character form several other
“strategic” business decisions, up through preparing and signing
multi-million dollar contracts with oil and gas license operators.
If senior management is willing to conspire, lie, and falsify documents
to deal with what should be a relatively simple problem to control or
solve, had they only effectively applied their own policies and been
responsible, what would keep any company from corrupting the outcome of
other unfavorable health and safety or other controversial information?
Should we be resigned to allow such companies to just change the rules
whenever they cannot “win” on their terms? It is all connected. The
problem is that such behaviors are all too common today globally, and it
has impact on the greater global economic culture of business.
Cheaters are holding onto their jobs, even being further rewarded, while
honest, capable and committed workers are losing their jobs and
livelihoods directing the sector on the wrong course by use of a broken
moral compass. Corrupt organizational hierarchies are making bad
business decisions and then using HR to formally facilitate personnel
actions to hide their incompetence. This reality negatively effects
quality, health and safety, and the environment. It impacts employees,
customers, and investors. It effects the entire seismic industry and
beyond, and it needs to be stopped. Hopefully, informing business
sector stakeholders will facilitate this change.
With most people disbelief in a thing is founded on a blind belief in some other thing. ― Georg C. Lichtenberg
I never thought that I would ever work under such dishonest and
manipulative management hierarchy as I did. I worked within the
contract sales group in England concentrating on Africa projects. When I
voiced health and safety concerns and believed that I was being bullied
by my boss, management’s reaction had me in disbelief. There is a lot
of literature about workplace bullying and it is not an altogether
exceptional issue to come across these days. In fact, it is a serious
issue mentioned within the company handbook as something that is not
tolerated. Countries are passing workplace bullying legislation
affecting global workplaces. One would think (or hope) that high level
human resource professionals and executives would want to be in tune
with this knowledge and possess the acumen to listen and address such
concerns professionally and be able to arrive at some mutually
advantageous solution if such issues arose.
After all, stress, harassment and bullying are the most highly ranked
workplace hazards within the UK, where I was working. I was not
actually familiar with the term “workplace bullying” until I started to
try and put a name on the unreasonable and derisive management practices
which I was enduring. The silence, misinformation, and deception all
around me was the most difficult part to absorb. My direct interaction
with human resources throughout my career had been minimal until my
England assignment. I had never experienced anything close while
working for the U.S. Department of Defense where keeping information
secret was in fact part of the team’s job.
To make a long story short, it was never officially resolved
whether I was bullied. But, it was neither resolved that I hadn’t been
bullied. We agreed to part ways. I wanted to leave the inhospitable
and uncomfortable situation behind me, and so I moved back to America,
along with my family. Top management had done just about everything
possible to avoid dealing with the issue directly.
Over time, what I have become completely certain of, in my case, is that
the HR manager responsible for compiling my file is a liar and a
coward. However, his actions were wholly empowered and supported by top
management, who apparently share his level of character. The senior
vice president of HR and current executive vice president of operations,
who reside at the parent company headquarters in Norway, created and
signed a forged memo which was added to my professional personnel
records. The memo presented false assertions that a conclusion
regarding my bullying issue had been reached. In fact, nothing could
have been further from the truth. This high level power team
demonstrated no interest in dealing with my issue on a professional
level according to the company’s policies and procedures. Yet, they
continue to project a narrative where they essentially won the
argument. This is unacceptable.
Through all of this, they were in fact willing to endanger my health and
well-being to maintain and project authority. There was never an
interest for an objective review of the situation and no dialogue. I
would have never brought-up such mistreatment and company departure from
process and procedure at such a high level without some chronicle of
reasons or episodes to support my claims. There was plenty of
information presented that the senior management team could have reasonably considered
and reported on. During the same period, management requested an
independent report from an occupational health professional. I
discovered it through a separate Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) subject
access request.
The senior management knowingly withheld this report
from me while I was employed and considering my exit. They also
responded to me and the compliance agency that such a report was never
provided to them when I made my subject access request. They had lied
to me and likely to the compliance agency. I believe that management
took advantage of the fact that I was from America and required company
sponsorship to remain in determining how to address my issue.
Management colluded to make my work conditions more unbearable so I
would not want a prolonged confrontation and have to remain in England
any longer. They were correct that I did not want to stay in England
surrounded by such dishonest and manipulative hosts. They used this to
their advantage as they averted protocols and delayed decisions until I
finally agreed to leave and not press the issue any further. And then
top management had the false narrative follow me to America polluting
the seismic industry community. They were likely surprised by my DPA
subject access request.
The senior management completely abrogated their responsibility as
prescribed in policy. They demonstrated no leadership or ability to
discuss difficult issues whatsoever. Instead, they created falsified
documents to form a suitable written mythology to place into my
personnel file. Through guidance and cooperation from the company top
executives, HR changed dates and left out or embellished events – the
entire history of my final months of employment – to make things appear
as though some semblance of policy and procedure was followed when it
was not. They left out any of my disagreements to their unsubstantiated
narrative leaving a completely one-sided –false – narrative.
This shameful behavior was not only supported, but rewarded
during a year with reduced earnings. Since shedding light on my
circumstances, high level scientists working for my former employer and
anonymous others have viewed my LinkedIn profile. I have encouraged the
identifiable one’s to look into my file and check my personnel file and
claims for themselves. People of honor would want to defend their
character.
[Link: https://www.pgs.com/Pressroom/Press_Releases/Petroleum-Geo-Services-ASA--Implementation-of-2015-Employee-Long-term-Incentive-Plan-/ now found in Archive:
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20150623063426/https://www.pgs.com/Pressroom/Press_Releases/Petroleum-Geo-Services-ASA--Implementation-of-2015-Employee-Long-term-Incentive-Plan- ]
Expectedly, there has been no response, only the typical silence and
avoidance from confronting truth. Apparently, it was not enough for the
hierarchy to take away my career, they also wanted to steal my identity
and rewrite history so that it should be difficult that I ever have one
again. This tale of events would have never been shared had I not come
to discover the true hubris and vindictiveness of my former employer’s
senior management through a UK Data Protection Act 1998 subject access
request. Without the leverage of certainty, I would have never known
without doubt the distortions and would have been obliged to silence
assuming accurate records, as both the DPA and ethical practices
require, were being retained.
It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin
it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently. ~ Warren
Buffett
My narrative, while unique, is not altogether exceptional. Change the
company and some particulars, and the behaviors and character of how
issues of bullying and whistle-blowing are dealt with have a common
theme. Power structures will align themselves and protect their domains
by all means. Fairness is a side issue only read about in HR columns
removed from the real world. We find trust in business relationships at
an all-time low, while management hubris and abuse of positions seems
to be at an all-time high. Why? The common reaction to those who expose
corruption or management incompetence is to purge the messenger.
Management will conspire to lie, cheat, and yes, endanger worker lives,
to maintain their power and position.
Psychologists David DeSteno and
Piercarlo Valdesolo conducted several experiments showing time and again
that 90% of people – mostly of whom identify themselves as morally
upstanding – will act dishonestly to benefit themselves if they believe that they will not be caught.
Further to this, people will rationalize their own dishonesty while
condemning the dishonesty of others. In other research by Paul Piff, it
was found that with increased power and status there is a decrease in
honesty and reliability. Psychologist Robert Feldman believes people
are motivated to lie not necessarily to impress others, but to maintain a
view of themselves consistent with the way that they want others to
view them.
In the workplace, self-esteem and threats to the executive’s
sense of self are drivers for lying.
Executives want to look good in the company and this is closely tied
with the fact that people appear to be short-term focused when they
decide to deceive someone. While individuals work to sustain their
self-image and self-worth in the short term, if the deceived individual
finds out it can have long-term consequences. I hope that this is what
is happening now. Within an organization with a fair and ethical
management system, if managers have the legitimate formal power, along
with the appropriate processes to handle employee issues, there would be
no need to risk lying and damaging the organizations reputation.
According to research cited by consultant and speaker Margaret
Heffernan, 85% of surveyed US and UK executives avoid dealing with
issues that might provoke conflict. These executives did not want to be
challenged because they were afraid to get embroiled in arguments that
they did not know how to manage, and felt that they were bound to lose.
Couple this with a propensity for high-level executives to preserve
their self-identity through lying and many events become easier to
explain, while not necessarily easier to accept.
Human resources is too often used as a punitive function to protect
and hide organization leadership and managerial corruption and
incompetence. This negatively impacts and corrupts the entire
organization culture. This results in sub-optimal organization and
system performance in all areas impacting quality, health and safety,
and environment. Organizations who misuse the human resource function
blemish the majority of honest and competent HR professionals and the
positive contributions that they can provide to organizations when
counseled properly.
When a positive work culture is allowed to be
destroyed from within and hijacked by management of misrepresentation,
blame, and distortion, then employees, customers, and shareholders, as
well as the entire industry pay the price. When top managers are not
obliged to follow the policies and values that the company advocates,
these counter-cultural norms are then embraced to form a debased work
culture. In the modern business environment, we are all connected in
some way. Human resources is the center of organization culture. Human
resources articulate and publish company values and policy for common
understanding. How companies deal with workplace conflict, such as
claims of harassment, bullying, discipline and grievance processes, etc.
is a much better measure of company culture. How these events are
recorded and resolved along with third-party survey data would provide
more information than a company’s printed mission statements and values
to license operators who contract them. Gauging contractor cultures
compatibility with operator cultures will also reduce project risks.
Many business and project failures are due to incompatible work cultures
working ineffectively toward incongruent objectives. As it was
written, the path to ethics starts with human resources. It often ends
there too.
You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know. ~ William Wilberforce
Source: http://linkis.com/nopgs.com/psUZT
'Great Spirit' - Nahko and Medicine For The People
Showing posts with label Workplace Bully. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Workplace Bully. Show all posts
04 January 2017
02 December 2016
Queensland Industrial Court Vice-President Dianne Linnane faces Workplace Bullying claim
Queensland Industrial Court vice-president Dianne Linnane.
A
secret investigation has been ordered into allegations of workplace
bullying against one of Queensland’s most senior industrial umpires.
The high-ranking official within a Queensland government agency pockets $400,000 a year.
The high-ranking official within a Queensland government agency pockets $400,000 a year.
Justice
Department deputy director-general Simon Blackwood commissioned the
almost unprecedented independent probe into Queensland Industrial Court
vice-president Dianne Linnane after she allegedly bullied a fellow
judicial officer.
Melbourne lawyer Barry Sherriff has been quietly conducting interviews for months, after being asked to investigate whether Ms Linnane — who is paid an annual base salary of nearly $400,000 and has tenure until she is 70 — breached the state’s Work Health and Safety Act.
She is alleged to have bullied Industrial Court commissioner Minna Knight.
The judicial officers serve on the Industrial Court and Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, which are responsible for resolving workplace disputes. The Australian understands Ms Linnane denies the allegations being investigated by Mr Sherriff and is considering legal options.
The Australian is not suggesting Ms Linnane engaged in the conduct, only that she is being investigated for it. She did not respond to questions from this paper put through the court’s registry yesterday.
The case is highly sensitive for the state, given judges’ right to immunity from prosecution and the separation of powers.
It is doubtful any action could be taken against Ms Linnane by the government even if the allegations were proven.
Under Queensland law, the only way to remove a judicial officer from their office is for the governor to order the removal after a vote of parliament for “mental or physical incapacity” or “misbehaviour”.
It is unlikely that bullying allegations against Ms Linnane would justify such an action, and Mr Sherriff is not conducting a general investigation into her fitness as a judicial officer. Under the Industrial Relations Act, judicial officers such as Ms Linnane are afforded immunities similar to Supreme Court judges for performing their duties.
The Linnane stoush spilt into the courtroom recently when Industrial Court president and Supreme Court judge Glenn Martin was forced to order Ms Linnane be removed from hearing an unrelated case in which Dr Blackwood would be a key witness.
The case involved public servant Alain D’Hotman De Villiers, who was sacked by Dr Blackwood from the Office of Industrial Relations. Lawyers for both the bureaucrat and the government asked Ms Linnane to recuse herself after she agreed to sign a notice ordering the production of documents.
The notice required the production of documents “showing Simon Blackwood’s involvement in responding to any complaint or complaints” about or involving Ms Linnane in the past five years, and all documents relating to the appointment of an investigator of any such complaints.
In a two-minute hearing in late October, Ms Linnane refused to hear arguments that she should recuse herself for apprehended bias. The government and Mr De Villiers’s lawyers appealed, and Justice Martin ruled on November 3 that she be recused because “the necessary ground for establishing apprehended bias has clearly been made out”.
When contacted by The Australian to give Ms Linnane a right of reply, her solicitor, Glen Cranny, said “it would not be appropriate to comment further at this point in time”.
Commissioner Knight and Dr Blackwood declined to comment.
Industrial Relations Minister Grace Grace said she was “aware” of the independent investigation but it was “the sole responsibility of the department”.
Aged in her mid-60s, Ms Linnane was appointed to both the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and the Industrial Court by the Beattie Labor government in 1999 after a career as a barrister.
In 2010, Right to Information documents obtained by The Courier-Mail revealed a long-running stoush between Ms Linnane and then-commissioner Don Brown, in which she ordered him not to enter the commission’s tearoom, library and his own chambers.
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/industrial-umpire-dianne-linnane-faces-workplace-bullying-claim/news-story/a81914f2f31ea23c96e6f58b88b13fcb
Also: http://finance.nine.com.au/2016/11/15/10/04/queensland-official-investigated-over-workplace-bullying-claim
24 July 2016
KARMA: Bully Bitten in the Bumb as Kevin Rudd's not the man for the United Nations: Helen Clark is far a better choice
Published in SMH.COM.AU , 16th July 2016
Written by: Elizabeth Farrelly
We really need to talk about Kevin. Our choice is between a wildly inexperienced but bumptious male and a wise, experienced female, respected, accomplished, fit-for-purpose. But really, is this even a contest?
I'm not talking Trump v Clinton (although if the cap fits, right?) I'm talking Kevin Rudd v Helen Clark, vying for UN Secretary-General.
Remember what this means. Secretary-General is not some sinecure for time served, some handy side-pocket for a pesky ex-PM. This is the search for the next Yoda. Wanted: Supreme Being, Planet Earth. Of course it's not Australia's decision, but Malcolm Turnbull is expected any moment to announce our nomination (or not) of Kevin Rudd as Candidate 13. Question is, should he?
The question must be asked. Does Rudd really have the gravitas to hold down Secretary-General?
Helen Clark, New Zealand's then-prime minister, right, looks on at Kevin Rudd in 2008. Photo: Bloomberg
Clark has been number three at the UN for seven years. Before that, she was NZ's (best) PM for nine. Rudd is also "over there", gracing the dining rooms and draughty halls of New York with his yet-undeclared campaign. PM for only three years, and then in two parts, bookending Gillard, he is more renowned for back-stabbing and bad-temper than compelling leadership. As a presence on the world stage, Clark towers over him.
If Malcolm had just one act left, one wave-of-the-wand to restore Australia's tattered image as a grown-up nation, it should be this. Transcend national rivalry. Forget the Bledisloe Cup, won by NZ 43 times of 55. Be big. Support Helen Clark for Secretary-General.
The decision must be made well before Ban-Ki Moon retires on December 31. From August, the UN Security Council (always dominated by the five permanent members with veto rights; France, Russia, China, the US and Britain) will ruminate and eventually hand its decision to the General Assembly for ratification. That much is the usual faux-democracy.
But the lead-up process has been, for the first time in 70 years, semi-transparent. There are 12 official candidates – counting Clark but not (yet) Rudd. Half are women, eight are Eastern European, two Latin American/Caribbean and two "Western European and Others". That's us, "others". Australia, NZ etc. Misc.
Already, several live-broadcast debates have let the candidates strut their stuff. Clark's performance in the latest, on Wednesday, won applause – for her humour (quipping that the group should be called "Western European and Orphans"), her insistence that Sec-Gen is not a turn-taking thing, like some dole-out of Olympic lollies, but a "global search for the best talent" and her frank criticism of the UN's human rights and conflict resolution record. It reminded me why Clark is such a standout. She never lets go of principle.
Clark has her critics, of course. But colleagues and staff remember her with immense respect, using phrases like "utterly focused" and "utter integrity."
"Fantastic," said her former Defence Minister Phil Goff of Clark, praising her focus, her "utter integrity," and her grip on "kiwi values," What values? Well, pluralism, feminism, fairness, decency, courtesy, frankness and backbone, for starters.
As a three-term PM she transformed social and cultural attitudes – presiding, not least, over Maoridom becoming cool. That alone is huge. In 1999, before her first election as PM, Clark persuaded the eloquent Maori mayor and former sex-worker Georgina Beyer to contest the right-leaning seat of Wairarapa; becoming NZ's first openly transsexual MP and a much-loved public figure.
In 2001, when Howard was still doing children overboard, Clark's government welcomed 131 people from the Tampa. Without fuss, they accepted hundreds from Australia's festering prisons on Nauru and Manus. Then, unlike Australia's policy of preventing family reunions, worked assiduously to locate and reunite family members.
In 2002, Clark formally apologised to Samoa for injustices committed under NZ rule, and to the LGBTQI community for harm and ill-treatment. In 2003, when the Blair-Bush team were stamping their war-boots, Clark refused to send troops to Iraq, saying that a Gore presidency in the US would not have invaded. So now, post-Chilcot, when we're all wondering why Howard and the Coalition of the Willing should not be named as war criminals, NZ looks strong and honourable.
She made the unpromising-looking MMP voting system work by forming strong alliances with the Greens and others and, throughout, refused to play the gender card, so transforming the status of women.
As to Rudd? Much of the criticism directed at him is personal – the temper tantrums, the selfies, the narcissism, the tendency to bully staff. This is largely irrelevant to his professional performance, especially since most of the bullying accusations originate with political opponents – in particular Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop.
Gillard's description of the bullying amounts to little more than stepping angrily "into my space", which seems scarcely coup-worthy. And although Bishop told the ABC in 2009 that "bullying behaviour by the Prime Minister … is totally unacceptable" she now, mysteriously, supports Rudd's UN campaign.
So no. It's more about Rudd's accomplishments and the extent to which these demonstrate leadership qualities like wisdom, principle and moral strength.
Rudd began well, coming in on a landslide and within months ratified the Kyoto protocol and offered the Stolen Generations an apology that echoed Keating's. Thereafter, it started to look more like gesture than fact. The Rudd-Swan team is often credited with our weathering the GFC relatively unscathed, but that's more reliably down to the zero debt they inherited from Peter Costello. Rudd's white paper on homelessness (2008) attracted attention, with the PM sleeping rough, but – like his 2020 summit – changed little.
There was an emissions trading scheme that exempted high-emitters, an asylum-seeker policy that rejected more applications than Howard and a promised NBN for which we're still waiting.
So, honey, do we really have to talk about Kevin?
Source: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/forget-kevin-rudd-we-should-back-helen-clark-for-united-nations-secretarygeneral-20160714-gq5s9p.html
COMMENTS - LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK ...
Written by: Elizabeth Farrelly
We really need to talk about Kevin. Our choice is between a wildly inexperienced but bumptious male and a wise, experienced female, respected, accomplished, fit-for-purpose. But really, is this even a contest?
I'm not talking Trump v Clinton (although if the cap fits, right?) I'm talking Kevin Rudd v Helen Clark, vying for UN Secretary-General.
Remember what this means. Secretary-General is not some sinecure for time served, some handy side-pocket for a pesky ex-PM. This is the search for the next Yoda. Wanted: Supreme Being, Planet Earth. Of course it's not Australia's decision, but Malcolm Turnbull is expected any moment to announce our nomination (or not) of Kevin Rudd as Candidate 13. Question is, should he?
The question must be asked. Does Rudd really have the gravitas to hold down Secretary-General?
Clark has been number three at the UN for seven years. Before that, she was NZ's (best) PM for nine. Rudd is also "over there", gracing the dining rooms and draughty halls of New York with his yet-undeclared campaign. PM for only three years, and then in two parts, bookending Gillard, he is more renowned for back-stabbing and bad-temper than compelling leadership. As a presence on the world stage, Clark towers over him.
If Malcolm had just one act left, one wave-of-the-wand to restore Australia's tattered image as a grown-up nation, it should be this. Transcend national rivalry. Forget the Bledisloe Cup, won by NZ 43 times of 55. Be big. Support Helen Clark for Secretary-General.
The decision must be made well before Ban-Ki Moon retires on December 31. From August, the UN Security Council (always dominated by the five permanent members with veto rights; France, Russia, China, the US and Britain) will ruminate and eventually hand its decision to the General Assembly for ratification. That much is the usual faux-democracy.
But the lead-up process has been, for the first time in 70 years, semi-transparent. There are 12 official candidates – counting Clark but not (yet) Rudd. Half are women, eight are Eastern European, two Latin American/Caribbean and two "Western European and Others". That's us, "others". Australia, NZ etc. Misc.
Already, several live-broadcast debates have let the candidates strut their stuff. Clark's performance in the latest, on Wednesday, won applause – for her humour (quipping that the group should be called "Western European and Orphans"), her insistence that Sec-Gen is not a turn-taking thing, like some dole-out of Olympic lollies, but a "global search for the best talent" and her frank criticism of the UN's human rights and conflict resolution record. It reminded me why Clark is such a standout. She never lets go of principle.
Clark has her critics, of course. But colleagues and staff remember her with immense respect, using phrases like "utterly focused" and "utter integrity."
"Fantastic," said her former Defence Minister Phil Goff of Clark, praising her focus, her "utter integrity," and her grip on "kiwi values," What values? Well, pluralism, feminism, fairness, decency, courtesy, frankness and backbone, for starters.
As a three-term PM she transformed social and cultural attitudes – presiding, not least, over Maoridom becoming cool. That alone is huge. In 1999, before her first election as PM, Clark persuaded the eloquent Maori mayor and former sex-worker Georgina Beyer to contest the right-leaning seat of Wairarapa; becoming NZ's first openly transsexual MP and a much-loved public figure.
In 2001, when Howard was still doing children overboard, Clark's government welcomed 131 people from the Tampa. Without fuss, they accepted hundreds from Australia's festering prisons on Nauru and Manus. Then, unlike Australia's policy of preventing family reunions, worked assiduously to locate and reunite family members.
In 2002, Clark formally apologised to Samoa for injustices committed under NZ rule, and to the LGBTQI community for harm and ill-treatment. In 2003, when the Blair-Bush team were stamping their war-boots, Clark refused to send troops to Iraq, saying that a Gore presidency in the US would not have invaded. So now, post-Chilcot, when we're all wondering why Howard and the Coalition of the Willing should not be named as war criminals, NZ looks strong and honourable.
She made the unpromising-looking MMP voting system work by forming strong alliances with the Greens and others and, throughout, refused to play the gender card, so transforming the status of women.
As to Rudd? Much of the criticism directed at him is personal – the temper tantrums, the selfies, the narcissism, the tendency to bully staff. This is largely irrelevant to his professional performance, especially since most of the bullying accusations originate with political opponents – in particular Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop.
Gillard's description of the bullying amounts to little more than stepping angrily "into my space", which seems scarcely coup-worthy. And although Bishop told the ABC in 2009 that "bullying behaviour by the Prime Minister … is totally unacceptable" she now, mysteriously, supports Rudd's UN campaign.
So no. It's more about Rudd's accomplishments and the extent to which these demonstrate leadership qualities like wisdom, principle and moral strength.
Rudd began well, coming in on a landslide and within months ratified the Kyoto protocol and offered the Stolen Generations an apology that echoed Keating's. Thereafter, it started to look more like gesture than fact. The Rudd-Swan team is often credited with our weathering the GFC relatively unscathed, but that's more reliably down to the zero debt they inherited from Peter Costello. Rudd's white paper on homelessness (2008) attracted attention, with the PM sleeping rough, but – like his 2020 summit – changed little.
There was an emissions trading scheme that exempted high-emitters, an asylum-seeker policy that rejected more applications than Howard and a promised NBN for which we're still waiting.
So, honey, do we really have to talk about Kevin?
Source: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/forget-kevin-rudd-we-should-back-helen-clark-for-united-nations-secretarygeneral-20160714-gq5s9p.html
COMMENTS - LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK ...
- Truffles McLobsterYep. Rudd would do silly things like speaking out on behalf of the marginalised and the dispossessed. Clark is too clever to make that mistake.
- You're joking, yes?
- Sydney,Kevin Rudd's off stage temper and ability to work with others would become an international embarrassment, he doesn't belong on the world stage.
- Bringelly,Elizabeth you left out one sentence. If Kevin Rudd was the only applicant the world would be better served by nobody.
Helen Clark is an Olympic finalist, whilst Rudd is little Athletics.. - Dural,Too right she is!
- Completely agree, someone more like Helen Clark and less like Kevin Rudd is what the UN needs.
Unfortunately, for that reason, it will likely not happen. - West Woombye,I think it is safe to say that the UN knows exactly what Rudd is and shall treat him accordingly. We did.
- Spot on, KRudd is tantrum throwing egomaniac why on earth would anyone let him near the UN ??
- You could do a lot worse than have Helen Clark as SG. She is incredibly diligent, focused, capable and outcome driven.
- Sydney,Trump as US President? Bois Johnson as UK Foreign Secretary? Rudd as UN Secretary General?
It's the worlds worst nightmare!
Start digging your fallout shelter ... - Cheltenham, NSW,But hang on - Helen has Kevin's full support, doesn't she? Shouldn't he be trusted at his word? Given Kevin's substantial history of honest dealing, he wouldn't be publicly supporting someone while secretly white-anting them and promoting himself, now would he? I hope that, among others, Mark Latham and Julia Gillard proceed immediately to say just how safe it is to trust Kevin.
...Mike F - Couldn't agree more! Go, Helen. Go away, Kevin.
- Sydney,Rudd and Clark - chalk and cheese. And despite Kevin's cheesy grin he's the chalky, flaky substance.
- Lost at the interchange,I perceive the UN as an organisation that talks and talks, makes resolutions that don't get enforced and then backtracks until the next thing comes along.
Kevin would be the perfect fit to lead that outfit. He'll inject some insanity, irrational behaviour and look at me theatre as well. - Clark was one of our best PMs - she showed that negotiation in good faith with other parties can lead to stable and effective government under the NZ MMP political system.
That is not a bad track record to bring to the job of Secretary-General - ability to negotiate rather than grand-standing should be an essential criterion for that job. - Sydney,I agree completely. Kevin Rudd did a few things well and should be recognised for that, but the trail of problems and utter mismanagement he left in his wake is there for all to see and will take decades for hard-working Australians to resolve.
To imagine scaling-up those errors to a global size just makes me shivver. Helen Clark is clearly a rare talent and has the potential to become a global stateswoman without peer. Malcolm doesn't often get these things right, but here's his big chance - support Ms Clark for UN Secretary-General.
07 February 2016
Why would we want to inflict Rudd on the UN?
OPINION
The Drum
By Daryl McCann
Posted 4 Feb 2016, 8:58am
Photo:
Kevin Rudd is said to be hoping to replace Ban Ki-moon as the Secretary General of the United Nations. (Chip East : Reuters)
A similar criticism, paradoxically enough, might now be made of certain Coalition politicians, including Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who are considering backing Kevin Rudd's bid to replace Ban Ki-moon as the Secretary General of the United Nations at the end of 2016.
Michael Costa, former minister in a NSW Labor government, is not the only Labor stalwart to quip that are plenty of people who still respect Rudd but only because there are people who are yet to work with him. Fifty-seven members of the federal ALP caucus knew exactly the kind of character Rudd was but nevertheless returned him to the Lodge - the most responsible and important position in the land - hoping that the electioneering magic of Kevin 07 had not been entirely exhausted.
On regaining the prime ministership, Rudd claimed that three years in the political wildness - OK, winging around the world as foreign minister - had resulted in a character transformation: a "new humility". A few tried to convince themselves it was true, even if the facts pointed in entirely the opposite direction. Let's face it, by June 2013 Labor knew Rudd was a danger to Australia and yet 57 members of the Caucus voted him back into power.
To the extent there is a job specification for the position of UN Secretary General, Rudd does not fit the bill. The UN's risibly short memorandum calls for candidates with "the highest standards of efficiency, competency and integrity" along with "proven leadership and managerial abilities". The character assessment made by the full spectrum of Kevin Rudd's own party and advisors alone should disqualify him from consideration for the top UN job.
So why are members of Prime Minister Turnbull's Government threatening to foist Rudd not only on Australia but also on the entire world? Despite their obvious differences as politicians, Turnbull and Rudd are both aficionados of the art of triangulation. There is nothing wrong per se with operating from the middle of the political spectrum, and I have argued before that there are advantages in PM Turnbull shifting the Coalition towards the centre.
The risk of triangulation, however, is that endlessly positioning between genuinely competing views can signify not reasonableness but hollow opportunism. Take, for instance, Rudd's changeability on the issue of comprehensive border control. Obviously there were mistakes in the way Rudd went about dismantling Howard's Pacific Solution, something acknowledged even by some on the left.
Shortly before Rudd was forced out of the prime ministership, Julia Gillard identified "loss of control of borders" - according to an email disclosed in Troy Bramston's Rudd, Gillard and Beyond (2014) - as a key problem for the first Rudd administration. Come June 2013, though, and Rudd was tacking to the right of Gillard's Pacific Solution II and to the left of Tony Abbott's Operation Sovereign Borders with an irresponsible warning about a war with Indonesia.
Perhaps all this positioning and re-positioning and supplementary re-positioning is Rudd merely trying to "get the balance right". Or, more likely, the fellow is a hollow opportunist who does not stand for anything except his own self-advancement. Here we begin to see the conjunction of grand narcissism and capriciousness culminating in a dysfunctional leadership style. This, of course, is not exactly what the endemically dysfunctional United Nations requires right now.
Which leads us back to the question of why members of the Turnbull Government would countenance Rudd's candidacy for the top job at the United Nations in the first place. On the surface, at least, it might seem statesman-like of the Coalition to accommodate the aspirations of a former political adversary. It might give the appearance of bipartisanship and reaching across the political aisle, but it is a mirage.
Lending any kind of support to the vaulting ambition of a man whose career already exemplifies the Peter Principle par excellence would not only be an act of narrow political calculation but of great irresponsibility. Hopefully Turnbull's version of centrist politics retains its capacity to distinguish between reasonableness and hollow opportunism.
Some might argue that Rudd remains a long shot and so a bout of feel-good nationalism on the part Julie Bishop et al for "our Kev" won't do any damage. Still, we must always expect the unexpected in the opaque realm of international bureaucracy.
Australia will have a lot to answer for in the decade ahead if, later this year, Kevin Rudd's name gets pulled out of the hat.
Daryl McCann writes regularly for Quadrant and the Salisbury Review. Visit his blog.
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/mccann-why-would-we-want-to-inflict-rudd-on-the-un/7138408
The Drum
By Daryl McCann
Posted 4 Feb 2016, 8:58am
Everyone knows how dysfunctional Kevin
Rudd's leadership style was, so why would senior Coalition members
consider backing his bid to become Secretary General of the United
Nations? Daryl McCann writes.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013 must rate as one of the lowest points in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. On that day a leadership spill in the Australian Labor Party resulted in caucus recalling Kevin Rudd to the prime ministership by a margin of 57-45.
Few on the Labor side of politics could offer any reason for doing so
other than political expediency ahead of the 2013 federal election - the
national interest did not enter into their calculation.
A similar criticism, paradoxically enough, might now be made of certain Coalition politicians, including Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who are considering backing Kevin Rudd's bid to replace Ban Ki-moon as the Secretary General of the United Nations at the end of 2016.
Michael Costa, former minister in a NSW Labor government, is not the only Labor stalwart to quip that are plenty of people who still respect Rudd but only because there are people who are yet to work with him. Fifty-seven members of the federal ALP caucus knew exactly the kind of character Rudd was but nevertheless returned him to the Lodge - the most responsible and important position in the land - hoping that the electioneering magic of Kevin 07 had not been entirely exhausted.
On regaining the prime ministership, Rudd claimed that three years in the political wildness - OK, winging around the world as foreign minister - had resulted in a character transformation: a "new humility". A few tried to convince themselves it was true, even if the facts pointed in entirely the opposite direction. Let's face it, by June 2013 Labor knew Rudd was a danger to Australia and yet 57 members of the Caucus voted him back into power.
To the extent there is a job specification for the position of UN Secretary General, Rudd does not fit the bill. The UN's risibly short memorandum calls for candidates with "the highest standards of efficiency, competency and integrity" along with "proven leadership and managerial abilities". The character assessment made by the full spectrum of Kevin Rudd's own party and advisors alone should disqualify him from consideration for the top UN job.
So why are members of Prime Minister Turnbull's Government threatening to foist Rudd not only on Australia but also on the entire world? Despite their obvious differences as politicians, Turnbull and Rudd are both aficionados of the art of triangulation. There is nothing wrong per se with operating from the middle of the political spectrum, and I have argued before that there are advantages in PM Turnbull shifting the Coalition towards the centre.
"Hopefully Turnbull's version of centrist politics retains its capacity to distinguish between reasonableness and hollow opportunism."
The risk of triangulation, however, is that endlessly positioning between genuinely competing views can signify not reasonableness but hollow opportunism. Take, for instance, Rudd's changeability on the issue of comprehensive border control. Obviously there were mistakes in the way Rudd went about dismantling Howard's Pacific Solution, something acknowledged even by some on the left.
Shortly before Rudd was forced out of the prime ministership, Julia Gillard identified "loss of control of borders" - according to an email disclosed in Troy Bramston's Rudd, Gillard and Beyond (2014) - as a key problem for the first Rudd administration. Come June 2013, though, and Rudd was tacking to the right of Gillard's Pacific Solution II and to the left of Tony Abbott's Operation Sovereign Borders with an irresponsible warning about a war with Indonesia.
Perhaps all this positioning and re-positioning and supplementary re-positioning is Rudd merely trying to "get the balance right". Or, more likely, the fellow is a hollow opportunist who does not stand for anything except his own self-advancement. Here we begin to see the conjunction of grand narcissism and capriciousness culminating in a dysfunctional leadership style. This, of course, is not exactly what the endemically dysfunctional United Nations requires right now.
Which leads us back to the question of why members of the Turnbull Government would countenance Rudd's candidacy for the top job at the United Nations in the first place. On the surface, at least, it might seem statesman-like of the Coalition to accommodate the aspirations of a former political adversary. It might give the appearance of bipartisanship and reaching across the political aisle, but it is a mirage.
Lending any kind of support to the vaulting ambition of a man whose career already exemplifies the Peter Principle par excellence would not only be an act of narrow political calculation but of great irresponsibility. Hopefully Turnbull's version of centrist politics retains its capacity to distinguish between reasonableness and hollow opportunism.
Some might argue that Rudd remains a long shot and so a bout of feel-good nationalism on the part Julie Bishop et al for "our Kev" won't do any damage. Still, we must always expect the unexpected in the opaque realm of international bureaucracy.
Australia will have a lot to answer for in the decade ahead if, later this year, Kevin Rudd's name gets pulled out of the hat.
Daryl McCann writes regularly for Quadrant and the Salisbury Review. Visit his blog.
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/mccann-why-would-we-want-to-inflict-rudd-on-the-un/7138408
25 August 2013
Outbursts become rude reminders of Kevin Rudd's past
Published in : The Australian
Date: August 23, 2013 12:00AM
Written by: Rachel Baxendale, Reporter, Melbourne and Sid Maher, National Affairs Editor, Canberra
The air vice-marshal's comments came to light as Brisbane make-up artist Lily Fontana posted a message on Facebook that suggested Mr Rudd had been rude to her in the lead-up to Wednesday night's people's forum in Brisbane.
The revelations blunted Labor's attacks on Tony Abbott's character, after the Opposition Leader snapped during the forum debate, asking of Rudd "does this guy ever shut up?"
Ms Fontana, who lives in Mr Rudd's electorate of Griffith, wrote in her post: "Just finished doing Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott's make-up for the People's Forum at the Broncos Leagues Club. One of them was absolutely lovely, engaged in genuine conversation with me, acknowledge (sic) that I had a job to do and was very appreciative. The other did the exact opposite! Oh boy, I have ever (sic) had anyone treat me so badly whilst trying to do my job. Political opinion aside ... from one human being to another ... Mr Abbott you win hands down."
The post echoed claims that Mr Rudd had been rude to air force staff during his first term as prime minister. In the lead up to his failed February 2012 leadership challenge against Julia Gillard, an expletive-laden video was leaked of him losing his cool as he prepared a Chinese-language video.
As news of yesterday's Facebook post spread, prompting a string of government ministers to have to defend Mr Rudd's character, the Prime Minister's office was confronted with fallout from Air Vice-Marshal Criss's revelations in an interview on Brisbane radio on Wednesday.
The retired airman alleged that at a meeting in the Prime Minister's office on July 11, attended by Mr Rudd, Defence Force Welfare Association national president David Jamison, DFWA executive director Alf Jaugietis and Defence Materiel Minister Mike Kelly, Mr Rudd warned the DFWA against bagging the Labor government.
"I told him I was going to have to point out to our members that what Labor is offering is not a good deal," Air Vice-Marshal Criss said.
"I'm the national media manager, so I told him I would be putting together policy comparisons of what each party is offering. Rudd said, 'That's fine, but don't bag us, because if you bag us, we'll pull up the drawbridge and you'll get nothing'."
Air Vice-Marshal Criss told The Australian yesterday he had been intending to stay quiet about the incident, but chose to speak out after becoming infuriated with what he termed Dr Kelly's "untruths" about military superannuation indexation during an interview with ABC News Breakfast's Michael Rowland on Monday.
On July 30, the government announced it would boost the military pension of more than 26,000 retired Australian Defence personnel by indexing their payments in the same way as aged and service pensions from next July. But the measure only applies to those aged 65 and over, which according to the DFWA leaves more than 200,000 servicemen and ex-servicemen on insufficient payments.
Dr Kelly said the way Air Vice-Marshal Criss had characterised the meeting was "absolutely untrue". "He's basically saying that the Prime Minister was threatening," Dr Kelly said.
"That's completely untrue. He was there to engage and support (the DFWA representatives) and they were very happy that they were there having the meeting.
"The only way he could have construed that was perhaps that we emphasised the importance of acknowledging the changes to the system that had been made by Labor."
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said he did not accept Air Vice-Marshal Criss's characterisation of the meeting.
"The Prime Minister had a productive meeting with members of the Defence Force Welfare Association, including Air Vice-Marshal Peter Criss," the spokesman said.
"The outcome of the meeting was that the Prime Minister agreed to support the next step of the DFWA's proposal for indexation and we look forward to ongoing constructive engagement with the DFWA on this matter."
Ms Fontana's Facebook post yesterday was shared more than 1000 times on the social networking site before Sky News ordered the freelance make-up artist to take it down.
She contacted Mr Rudd's office and offered an apology to the Prime Minister. By mid-morning, Ms Fontana had posted a new, regretful message.
"Didn't think my personal page/opinion of my day would get so much attention," she wrote. "What a lesson to learn. I've removed the post and regret making the comments I did."
Another Brisbane-based make-up artist, Abigael Johnston, who has worked for the Nine Network, had posted on Ms Fontana's wall about a "similar experience" with Mr Rudd, noting John Howard and Peter Costello were "gentlemen". "The other, I could not even face book (sic) how he treated the crew. Just abhorrent!" she wrote.
When contacted, Ms Johnston said: "That post has been taken down. I have no comment."
Employment Relations Minister Bill Shorten defended Mr Rudd's character, saying he believed the Prime Minister had changed. "I have no doubt that not only is Kevin Rudd a more consultative person, but he is the right leader for these times," he said.
Former prime minister Bob Hawke, in Adelaide for a state Labor event, said voters did not care whether Mr Rudd was rude.
"If you're an intelligent voter, what's going to be more important to you: the fact that, under a great deal of pressure, the Prime Minister was just in passing a bit rude to a person, or that he is going to have for you and your kids and your grandchildren, a better education policy, a better health policy a better economic policy?" Mr Hawke said. Asked about the Facebook post, Mr Rudd said he understood "the person concerned has withdrawn their remarks from Facebook, and they regretted making those comments".
"When you are preparing for a debate with two or three minutes to go and someone walks in and puts stuff on your face, you smile, you are in the zone, you're ready to go," the Prime Minister said. "I don't know about you folks, but I'm not happy about having make-up put on at the best of days.
"You smile, then two or three minutes later out on the stage to participate in the debate - I think a misunderstanding has occurred and I have no hard feelings in terms of the comments which this person has now withdrawn."
Mr Abbott fumbled Ms Fontana's name - calling her "Tilly" - but he praised her professionalism and said the pair had an enjoyable conversation prior to the contest.
He played down his "does this guy ever shut up" remark during the people's forum. "Look, one contest that I can never win against Mr Rudd is a talkathon," the Opposition Leader said.
Mr Abbott said Mr Rudd suffered from being "all talk and no action".
Mr Albanese said Mr Abbott's response to Mr Rudd was "aggressive, was angry, and it reminded me of a leader we used to have, Mark Latham".
"I thought his handshake during the first debate was his first Mark Latham moment, and last night we saw his second Mark Latham moment ... People are right to be worried about this bloke, about whether he is up to the job," Mr Albanese said.
Additional reporting: Sarah Elks
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/outbursts-become-rude-reminders-of-pms-past/story-fn9qr68y-1226702470808
Date: August 23, 2013 12:00AM
Written by: Rachel Baxendale, Reporter, Melbourne and Sid Maher, National Affairs Editor, Canberra
A RETIRED air vice-marshal has accused Kevin Rudd of "bully standover tactics" and a make-up artist has declared he was rude as she prepared him for the people's forum debate, reviving questions about the Prime Minister's character that emerged in his first stint in the role.
Air Vice-Marshal Peter Criss revealed Mr Rudd had warned him in a private meeting that funding for veterans would be at risk if he "bagged" the Labor government. He accused Mr Rudd of using "classic bully standover tactics" and threatening veterans with getting nothing if they criticised Labor's military superannuation indexation policy.The air vice-marshal's comments came to light as Brisbane make-up artist Lily Fontana posted a message on Facebook that suggested Mr Rudd had been rude to her in the lead-up to Wednesday night's people's forum in Brisbane.
The revelations blunted Labor's attacks on Tony Abbott's character, after the Opposition Leader snapped during the forum debate, asking of Rudd "does this guy ever shut up?"
Ms Fontana, who lives in Mr Rudd's electorate of Griffith, wrote in her post: "Just finished doing Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott's make-up for the People's Forum at the Broncos Leagues Club. One of them was absolutely lovely, engaged in genuine conversation with me, acknowledge (sic) that I had a job to do and was very appreciative. The other did the exact opposite! Oh boy, I have ever (sic) had anyone treat me so badly whilst trying to do my job. Political opinion aside ... from one human being to another ... Mr Abbott you win hands down."
The post echoed claims that Mr Rudd had been rude to air force staff during his first term as prime minister. In the lead up to his failed February 2012 leadership challenge against Julia Gillard, an expletive-laden video was leaked of him losing his cool as he prepared a Chinese-language video.
As news of yesterday's Facebook post spread, prompting a string of government ministers to have to defend Mr Rudd's character, the Prime Minister's office was confronted with fallout from Air Vice-Marshal Criss's revelations in an interview on Brisbane radio on Wednesday.
The retired airman alleged that at a meeting in the Prime Minister's office on July 11, attended by Mr Rudd, Defence Force Welfare Association national president David Jamison, DFWA executive director Alf Jaugietis and Defence Materiel Minister Mike Kelly, Mr Rudd warned the DFWA against bagging the Labor government.
"I told him I was going to have to point out to our members that what Labor is offering is not a good deal," Air Vice-Marshal Criss said.
"I'm the national media manager, so I told him I would be putting together policy comparisons of what each party is offering. Rudd said, 'That's fine, but don't bag us, because if you bag us, we'll pull up the drawbridge and you'll get nothing'."
Air Vice-Marshal Criss told The Australian yesterday he had been intending to stay quiet about the incident, but chose to speak out after becoming infuriated with what he termed Dr Kelly's "untruths" about military superannuation indexation during an interview with ABC News Breakfast's Michael Rowland on Monday.
On July 30, the government announced it would boost the military pension of more than 26,000 retired Australian Defence personnel by indexing their payments in the same way as aged and service pensions from next July. But the measure only applies to those aged 65 and over, which according to the DFWA leaves more than 200,000 servicemen and ex-servicemen on insufficient payments.
Dr Kelly said the way Air Vice-Marshal Criss had characterised the meeting was "absolutely untrue". "He's basically saying that the Prime Minister was threatening," Dr Kelly said.
"That's completely untrue. He was there to engage and support (the DFWA representatives) and they were very happy that they were there having the meeting.
"The only way he could have construed that was perhaps that we emphasised the importance of acknowledging the changes to the system that had been made by Labor."
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said he did not accept Air Vice-Marshal Criss's characterisation of the meeting.
"The Prime Minister had a productive meeting with members of the Defence Force Welfare Association, including Air Vice-Marshal Peter Criss," the spokesman said.
"The outcome of the meeting was that the Prime Minister agreed to support the next step of the DFWA's proposal for indexation and we look forward to ongoing constructive engagement with the DFWA on this matter."
Ms Fontana's Facebook post yesterday was shared more than 1000 times on the social networking site before Sky News ordered the freelance make-up artist to take it down.
She contacted Mr Rudd's office and offered an apology to the Prime Minister. By mid-morning, Ms Fontana had posted a new, regretful message.
"Didn't think my personal page/opinion of my day would get so much attention," she wrote. "What a lesson to learn. I've removed the post and regret making the comments I did."
Another Brisbane-based make-up artist, Abigael Johnston, who has worked for the Nine Network, had posted on Ms Fontana's wall about a "similar experience" with Mr Rudd, noting John Howard and Peter Costello were "gentlemen". "The other, I could not even face book (sic) how he treated the crew. Just abhorrent!" she wrote.
When contacted, Ms Johnston said: "That post has been taken down. I have no comment."
Employment Relations Minister Bill Shorten defended Mr Rudd's character, saying he believed the Prime Minister had changed. "I have no doubt that not only is Kevin Rudd a more consultative person, but he is the right leader for these times," he said.
Former prime minister Bob Hawke, in Adelaide for a state Labor event, said voters did not care whether Mr Rudd was rude.
"If you're an intelligent voter, what's going to be more important to you: the fact that, under a great deal of pressure, the Prime Minister was just in passing a bit rude to a person, or that he is going to have for you and your kids and your grandchildren, a better education policy, a better health policy a better economic policy?" Mr Hawke said. Asked about the Facebook post, Mr Rudd said he understood "the person concerned has withdrawn their remarks from Facebook, and they regretted making those comments".
"When you are preparing for a debate with two or three minutes to go and someone walks in and puts stuff on your face, you smile, you are in the zone, you're ready to go," the Prime Minister said. "I don't know about you folks, but I'm not happy about having make-up put on at the best of days.
"You smile, then two or three minutes later out on the stage to participate in the debate - I think a misunderstanding has occurred and I have no hard feelings in terms of the comments which this person has now withdrawn."
Mr Abbott fumbled Ms Fontana's name - calling her "Tilly" - but he praised her professionalism and said the pair had an enjoyable conversation prior to the contest.
He played down his "does this guy ever shut up" remark during the people's forum. "Look, one contest that I can never win against Mr Rudd is a talkathon," the Opposition Leader said.
Mr Abbott said Mr Rudd suffered from being "all talk and no action".
Mr Albanese said Mr Abbott's response to Mr Rudd was "aggressive, was angry, and it reminded me of a leader we used to have, Mark Latham".
"I thought his handshake during the first debate was his first Mark Latham moment, and last night we saw his second Mark Latham moment ... People are right to be worried about this bloke, about whether he is up to the job," Mr Albanese said.
Additional reporting: Sarah Elks
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/outbursts-become-rude-reminders-of-pms-past/story-fn9qr68y-1226702470808
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)