By Prime Ministerial edict, from today no Government Minister (of either gender) may engage in sexual relations (of any type) with any member of his/her departmental staff (of whatever persuasion – LBGTWXYZ etc) at pain of being removed from his/her Ministry.
Please note that we are not talking about minors here (that has been legally verboten for decades) or disadvantaged or disabled staff (which is equally a no-no).
We are, apparently, most concerned about hierarchical ‘duty of care’, which quite reasonably worries that the boss might use job sanctions to pressurise the junior.
But between fully consenting – nay, enthusiastic – adults of sound mind with no positive or negative sanctions involved, it’s anachronistic, invasive bullying of the worst kind.
Presumably Australia is now aspiring to become the fourth Islamic Reich – “ve have vays of making you celibate!”
Or something. 😎
Boadicea's Chariot 
If two adults form a strong attachment there is very little that will stop them from consummating the relationship.
Nature is more powerful than the edict of a political halfwit.
I find it amusing that the Waffling Wanker of Wentworth is choosing to pick a battle when his hold on government is so tenuous. His only real asset is the fact that Rapey Bill is an even bigger twat. I never could stand the WWW as he’s as vapid as he is self-important. At least Abbott, whatever his many failures, at least had some personal character and sense of duty.
No more climbing the ladder by spreading them then.
Quite apart from Jazz’s comment – which I think only a complete idiot would disagree with – I find it quite incredible that Turnbull thinks he can lay the law down for every single member of every single party in the House…
The Nationals are particularly sensitive about the Liberals laying down the law. Without the National Party’s support the Liberals would never get even a sniff at power. It would be Labor for ever – and Goodbye to Australia.
But, as I’ve noticed, the Liberals tend to forget that small, but extremely significant, fact and act as if they hold all the power. Well, they don’t. As part of the deal for the National’s support the Deputy PM in a Liberal Government is always the Leader of the National Party. And that, at the moment, is Barnaby Joyce, who has well and truly proved the truth of Jazz’s comment – but is still a pretty popular character.
I’m sure the MP who said he could name around another 50 people in the House who were behaving the same way was probably right.
You’re also correct, Christopher. The WWW (what a great acronym) is indeed in a precarious position – unfortunately I think he is already suffering from the I’m-God-Syndrome that usually only affects PMs after a couple of terms in office.
Boadicea: I think the Coalition will survive the WWW. The only chance that the Nationals have of having any real say in government is as part of the Coalition with the Liberals. The WWW is an aberration. He’s more a Labour man in temperament and outlook than Liberal, his affiliation has more to do with party power structures than ideology. I also don’t see any Oz Labour critters borrowing a page from NZ Labour and forming a coalition with a socially conservative, largely monarchist minor party and dropping much of the SJW/republican rhetoric. Rather, I think that the Liberals need another spell in opposition in order for them to sort their house out. The WWW had an “I’m God” complex as leader of the opposition following Rudd the Dud’s rise to power in 2007.
This ‘edict’ is typical of public sector attitudes here in Blighty too these days.
Apparently ALL men are sexual predators and ALL women are vulnerable. And any relationship formed at work is worthy of investigation and sanction.
I know of three colleagues who have lost their job for this very reason with a fourth about to be forced out. And more often than not, the ‘investigators’ are hypocrites who used to behave like that when it was sociably and professionally acceptable.
*sigh*
‘no Government Minister (of either gender) may engage in sexual relations (of any type) with any member of his/her departmental staff ‘
And very sensible policy too. Anybody that gets involved like this is asking for trouble and when it blows up in their faces is bound to cause difficult repercussions. It is hardly new as a corporate policy. Georgia Pacific had the same rule in the 70’s. If a liaison was to be formed , one of the partners had to move departments or to a differing facility. Non disclosure meant instant dismissal.
Frankly anyone lacking the personal judgement, male or female, in not seeing the sense in this doesn’t really have the nous for doing any job where responsibility to others is the premier consideration. Who wants political representation by some shithead who can’t see past their own sexuality? I certainly don’t! And never did. Plus how embarrassing to have to witness it in an office, yuk! Serious lip curler at the least.
It never was acceptable, didn’t do too much for the Profumo protagonists’ careers did it? It is not a new manifestation.
PS The only real difference is that in the past people had the sense, manners and morality to know that this was not acceptable behaviour, now they don’t and it has thus had to be codified. Again, how embarrassing. Humanity in retrograde mode.
What bollocks!!
If sexual relationships between departmental staff members had been forbidden in my day, I wouldn’t now be happily married 25 years after meeting my perfect match.
Or should I have said, “sorry, not tonight my dear. I must resign from my job first?”
What Christina said. With some spectacular exceptions, there was a time when people in positions of authority and those in the public eye generally knew how to behave. Now it has to be spelled out in tortuous detail by a committee of bitter lezzers, metropolitan liberals and proponents of the MGB GT brigade and any mere ‘allegation’ of perceived misconduct (not criminal prosecution or conviction, note) could lead to the instant, public hokey-cokey of stepping down, stepping aside or whatever.
Perhaps I should be binned for writing the above, or even daring to think it these days for I am after all a member of the last social grouping still considered fair game by soi-disant ‘progressives’ and ‘social media influencers’- the white, late middle aged, heterosexual, Brexit-supporting, male English pensioner.
OZ
Cuprum – I, too, am heartily sick of the notion that ALL men are ‘sexual predators’. They quite clearly are not. Indeed, I’ve met more than one or two women who could be given that label…
But, I’m even more angry at the notion that ALL women are ‘vulnerable’ – they clearly never met my grand-mother, my mother or any number of women of my generation, who had to deal with ‘problems’ without the backing of gender-equality and anti-harassment laws, social media, and all the other *** that has turned the present generation of women back into the Vapid, Fainting, Victorian Violets that we (that is my grandmother, etc,etc) despised. And what is so appalling to me – is that it is women who have brought about this change. But, I’ve always reckoned that Women are Independent Women’s worst enemies.
Christina – while I agree that such behaviour is not sensible, when has the attraction between two people ever been subject to the laws of logic? As Gazoopi points out, many people met their future partners through their work.
OZ – I don’t think that in the past those in authority and in the public eye generally knew how to behave. In fact, I’m quite sure they didn’t. What they did was to use their power to do exactly what they wanted and to make sure that what they were doing never reached ‘the public eye’. One only has to look at JFK to know that.
In some ways it is probably better that people can no longer hide what they’re doing. My biggest problem is that so many are condemned and punished on a mere ‘allegation’ or for doing something that a million people, not in the public eye, are doing every day.
Thinking on about the past, most office liaisons were not innocent gaz, more likely chancers trying for a bit on the side!
People knocking off their secretaries etc nearly always did end in tears and very expensive divorces. Messy, much better not to go there. I would have thought it much wiser to go to a call girl or brothel and pay hard cash rather than with your career. Freebies tend to end up costing the earth seemingly these days. As such, perhaps these people get what they deserve for sheer stupidity.
I have to admit I have never understood why women are willing to be the ‘other woman’ always struck me as particularly unprofitable, unsatisfactory and unpleasantly duplicitous. Can’t imagine anything more embarrassing than being cited as an adulteress in a divorce court!
Bo, agree with you about predatory females, it certainly is not one sided.
Or, to put it crudely, don’t do a poo on your own doorstep.
OZ
CO. Good evening and well said as always.
The problem with gazoopi, as ever, is that he appears to believe that it must have been all right, morally, if he did it. Whatever it was.
I am cheered that both you and I still march to a drum that believes that higher standards are something towards which we should try to strive.
G’day, JM. How nice to see a comment after several days silence from normally loquacious Charioteers . 😎
Just for the hell of it, here’s a little explanation of the odd subtlety and an update, or sitrep, if you prefer the term.
The English (and Austrayian) language is a wonderful thing, isn’t it? “Going bonkers” is happily understood by all as a synonym for “going crazy”. But “bonkers” is also a plural collective noun for “people who bonk”, and the verb “bonk” in this context has an entirely different meaning.
Turnbull’s edict is now known by all and sundry in the land down under as a “bonk ban”.
The piccie is, of course, Barnaby Joyce, who has been injudicious in his extra-mural activities.
Barnaby was steadfast in his determination not to resign until yesterday, when a Shelia from WA leapt on the “Me Too” bandwagon, accusing him of historical (hysterical?) “sexual harassment”. Judging this to be the straw which broke the camel’s back, Barnaby is no longer deputy PM or leader of the National Party, and has insisted that the woman’s “defamatory and baseless” accusation be passed immediately to the Police for forensic scrutiny- the unspoken threat being a civil action for big bucks in damages.
With all due respect to those Charioteers who can no longer remember what business life used to be like back in the ’60s, “Strewth, things haven’t half changed, innit?”
Here is a video from 1970. I wonder if there is a case for going after every member of the audience who laughed, not to mention the staff at the BBC who put it on. Heads should roll. As for Spike Milligan, maybe he deserves to have his grave desecrated.
I wonder whether, in days gone by, the apparent good behavior of those in authority and/or in the public eye may not have been merely public perception. (“They’re big shots, they gotta be alright, innit?”) Either that, or the people involved were better at covering their tracks than those seen today. I don’t know; I’ve always kept my nose out of other people’s private business and was never so lucky myself.
Until comparatively recently, in the corporate world carrying-on was largely ignored unless a couple dared to do their thing on a desktop during business hours. Where I worked, there was a VP of Human Resources who most thought rather strange but whom I found perfectly OK. He once delivered the shocking statement that, while sexual contact in a *power-differentiated relationship* (with one person reporting to the other) could not be countenanced, if the parties involved reported it to him in confidence, then he would do his utmost to transfer one of them without penalty. He had no problem with anything else so long as it wasn’t done during business hours. I tend to agree with CO’s opinion that most office liaisons involved (and still do, I imagine) “chancers trying for a bit on the side.” Overall, though, the best advice probably is, to put it even more crudely than OZ, “don’t shit where you eat.”
These days, though, it isn’t necessary for a man to lift a finger (or whatever). Even if he isn’t actually doing anything questionable, then the “@Metoo” bunch will very kindly invent something for him to purportedly have done/be doing. Thank you, ladies, for sparing us all that effort!
There was once an unmarried US President (whose name, unfortunately, eludes me at the moment) who on occasion had ladies visit him at the White House. The media discovered this but said nothing, except for one individual who, probably being under pressure to write something scandalous, dared to confront the President on the matter. The President’s response was something along the lines of, “I’d have thought the American people would be glad to know that their President is a *real man*!” Others have been more circumspect but, to this day, I can’t help wondering why I once saw a mini-motorcade carrying JFK to a NYC suburb where, to the best of my knowledge and belief, his presence was not required by affairs of state.