Catallaxy Files

Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog

Feeling up the staff on the taxpayer dollar

22 comments

ALL federal politicians will now be covered for legal expenses arising from staff harassment claims, workers’ compensation and public liability after the Gillard government closed the loophole that exposed them to the costly lawsuits.

In the wake of the Peter Slipper scandal, the then attorney-general Nicola Roxon faced a backbench revolt from Labor MPs last October after it was revealed the government would not cover legal expenses for MPs unless they were ministers or cabinet secretaries.

Really?

Written by Sinclair Davidson

February 14th, 2013 at 8:24 pm

Posted in Federal Politics

«
»

22 Responses to 'Feeling up the staff on the taxpayer dollar'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Feeling up the staff on the taxpayer dollar'.

  1. Well, why not? They’re already screwing us, so what difference does the odd grope make?

    The Beer Whisperer

    14 Feb 13 at 8:32 pm

  2. Sounds like another situation

    Union leaders are unaccountable unlike small business company directors
    So politicians are unaccountable for their activities or the cost of restitution

    Scum

    Aussieute

    14 Feb 13 at 9:23 pm

  3. Whether or not you realise it, we are a socialist state/system. While all criticisms of the system, deliberating in its ponderous majesty as the as the case may be, are valid, these mean nought politically because we are under the oppression of the majority, aka democracy.

    Louis Hissink

    14 Feb 13 at 9:32 pm

  4. Gray said

    Mr Gray said the liability insurance would not cover wilful, reckless, dishonest, fraudulent or malicious acts by MPs.

    So if the sexual harassment charge succeeds – ie the MP is convicted – doesn’t that mean the insurance shouldn’t apply? Will it then be recovered (since there might be an assertion the claim is vexatious but the Court may find that it was deliberate). In that case the insurance would pay the fees until the Court’s verdict is handed down. Surely the money should then be recovered?

    Samuel J

    14 Feb 13 at 9:37 pm

  5. Samuel,

    Que?

    Louis Hissink

    14 Feb 13 at 9:39 pm

  6. Louis – surely if an MP is convicted of sexual harassment, it is by definition it is wilful, reckless, dishonest, or malicious? To be convicted needs proof of motive and means.

    Samuel J

    14 Feb 13 at 9:44 pm

  7. Moral hazard?

    Why does the Labor Party need to have this legislation in place? Who else do they need to protect from going bankrupt (and therefore get kicked out of parliament)?

    Token

    14 Feb 13 at 9:46 pm

  8. who covered their workers’ compensation liability previously?

    Jim Rose

    14 Feb 13 at 9:50 pm

  9. Samuel,

    My mistake, you wrote Mr. Gray, I interpreted that as Grey, one of our intellectual lampreys.

    (Kowtows appropriately)

    Louis Hissink

    14 Feb 13 at 9:55 pm

  10. Samuel – what is the situation for non-MP employers?

    Sinclair Davidson

    14 Feb 13 at 10:04 pm

  11. It is routine for officials to be indemnified when sued in their official capacity.

    What a member of parliament is, is a legal curio.

    Under the Sale of Offices Act 1809, the sale of House of Commons seats was outlawed so membership of parliament must be freehold property. The cost varied, but the minimum for a Parliament seems to have been £5,000. The terms for an annual or sessional bargain were between £1,000 and £1,500.

    Prior to the 19th century virtually all European civil appointments were made through outright sale or patronage, included judicial courts and sheriffs.

    The queen is a corporation sole in perpetual succession – she or he may possess property as monarch which is distinct from the property he or she possesses personally, and may do acts as monarch distinguished from their personal acts. She can be sued in an official capacity or privately.

    Jim Rose

    14 Feb 13 at 10:21 pm

  12. Samuel, Sexual harassment is simply biology.

    Animals are driven by those urges but humans, as I learnt, are so by being able to resist or negate those urges.

    In that sense I would oppose any and all legislation affecting individual behaviour.

    One thing condemning behaviour as a mindless animal, another as a perceptive human.

    Louis Hissink

    14 Feb 13 at 10:24 pm

  13. Sinc – I’m not sure but I wouldn’t think that (say) the APS would provide legal assistance to APS employees who are being charged with sexual harassment.

    As for being indemnified – I think that is normally for acts (reasonably) done in an official capacity. Since (eg) the APS Code of Conduct specifically prohibits sexual harassment, I can’t see that any legal fees would be covered unless the claim was clearly vexatious.

    Samuel J

    14 Feb 13 at 10:24 pm

  14. Gee, I’m sure there are a few NSW Parliamentarians envious of this one. I mean, I was only parading my underpants 6 inches away from her face, as you do..!

    Lazlo

    14 Feb 13 at 10:44 pm

  15. Jim – I’m just wondering when sexual harassment would be considered part of your official duties. :-)

    Sinclair Davidson

    14 Feb 13 at 10:49 pm

  16. Well said Louis.

    I think we need to remember Lord Moulton’s great middle domain which lies between the domains of free choice and law. Sexual harassment is odious, but it is something that society should punish, not the law.

    The problem with the rise of the left and their attack on morality is that we have lost the ability to self regulate in the middle domain. Manners are indeed important, and their loss has done society nothing but harm.

    Rococo Liberal

    14 Feb 13 at 11:02 pm

  17. Nasty and dangerous. So now a Member of Parliament who gropes some young staffer can drag things through the courts (either civil tort or criminal appeal) until he wears his victim down, either psychologically or financially, and no justice will ever be done?

    Fucking disgusting. And this from the party that accuses the other side of hating women. Fuck them all on the end of Satan’s flaming dick.

    perturbed

    14 Feb 13 at 11:28 pm

  18. Perturbed -

    Yeah, pretty much.

    Philippa Martyr

    14 Feb 13 at 11:36 pm

  19. Fuck them all on the end of Satan’s flaming dick.

    Now that’s a strong statement, but fair..

    Lazlo

    14 Feb 13 at 11:45 pm

  20. I actually agree they should be covered but if it turns out they are guilty they should be liable for the costs and hunted down like the tax man would to someone who owes them money.

    kelly liddle

    14 Feb 13 at 11:52 pm

  21. “Sexual harassment is odious, but it is something that society should punish, not the law.”

    Why? I agree about the modern inability to self-regulate in the middle domain, even the left’s part in that development, but why should sexual harassment in particular not be subject to law?

    Jarrah

    14 Feb 13 at 11:54 pm

  22. ‘Sinc – I’m not sure but I wouldn’t think that (say) the APS would provide legal assistance to APS employees who are being charged with sexual harassment’

    I can’t imagine any circumstances in which government legal assistance would be provided to an APS employee in relation to either a breach of the APS Code of conduct (which is not actually a matter for criminal law) or a criminal charge.

    IIRC, An APS employee charged with breach of the Code is permitted to have a lawyer present in any investigation interview, but it would always be at the employee’s expense.

    Des Deskperson

    15 Feb 13 at 9:11 am

Leave a Reply