Ethics classes for Labor pollies and their appointees

Seano says:

08:09am | 24/04/10

There should be no religious scripture taught in schools. We are a secular nation so why are we wasting the incredibly small amount of time we have to educate our children with what is essentially religious propoganda? Religious education is for the home/church/synagog/mosque etc.

Scripture should be replaced with ethics and religious studies where children learn about ethics and all of the important aspects of the major belief (and lack of belief) systems in the world. This will promote tolerance and understanding and such classes could effectively integrated with other key learning areas such as literacy and history.

PS. A pollie lecturing other pollies on “ethics” is always amusing.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:57am | 24/04/10

Sophie , seems the A.L.P. issues it’s own free ethics manual with membership . The Queensland govt. is a case in study , accountability is a dirty word to the Bligh team.
Federally , the Rudd govt. is just short of oozing past the Whitlam govt. in the
sleaze stakes. Ethics , Labor style , closly resemble those adopted by Stalin , Hitler , Nixon , Mugabe , etc etc . 
They actually beleive they will slime their actions by complacent national and state electorates . Those electorates may tend to doze off but they are very light sleepers and they are beginning to wake to the massive fraud which has been perpetrated by the A.L.P. 
Though the damage has already been done and we will all pay the price of our lack of attention to their ethics , Australians will demand a punitive measure , Labor will be locked into the proverbial stocks and recieve a public whipping with devastating electoral results.

Blaise says:

09:06am | 24/04/10

Great article Sophie. I especially agree that we really need to lead by example to our kids.

Binglebee says:

09:48am | 24/04/10

of more concerne to me is Tony Abbotts ridiculous plan to get 20 more new submarines, they can’t get enough submariners to fill the 6 we don’t really need. What are you planning on doing Sophie, finding the subs with the new unmanned planes he intends to buy and sinking the boats of illegal immigrants with all these subs? As for sending more troops to Afghanistan I think thats a disgrace. We have risked enough young Australian lives as it is. Your party is a party of war mongers and there are many who will not find this acceptable. Tony Abbotts praise of Howard sending us to Iraq an illegal war is another indication that you continue to revel in the smell of blood and young Australian live you sacrifise to get your buzz

Charles says:

09:52am | 24/04/10

Yes, it is interesting that Kevin Rudd’s interpretation of ‘the buck stops with me’ type problem, is that it involves throwing tax-payers money at it until it either goes away or is covered and can’t be seen.

While any normal person would describe this as incompetence and stupidity writ large, it seems to have become the ‘solution du jour’ for the ALP.  I can see it is going to be a long hard winter for most of us.

Herbie says:

10:24am | 24/04/10

Another Trashy post from a Liberal Pollie. Haven’t you got anything better to do than attacking people online? If you feel the need to attack people , look at your own party, you have plenty of fools to choose from

acotrel says:

11:59am | 24/04/10

Sophie is simply demonstrating her lack of knowledge about ‘ethics’.  She should look it up on the web, and learn to use it herself

John A Neve says:

01:38pm | 24/04/10

Sophie,
Few if any politicians should talk on the subject of ethics.  As for bribery, don’t all politicians do that?

Politics in this country is about misleading the public, it’s the politics of fear e,g weapons of mass destruction, children overboard, terrorist in amongst the boat people, why go on, you’d know all about these cons wouldn’t you?

Please Sophie, don’t insult the public by writing about a topic of which you have no knowledge e.g “ethics”.

stephen says:

03:56pm | 24/04/10

‘Sir, which ice-cream’s ethical, chocolate or vanilla ?’
I’d love to see 10 year olds wrestle with such abstractness as ethics and values. Here’s a tip ; dress’em up in toga, sandals and have them staring at the ground as they walk (hands clasped), as if really knew something.
They’re children for chrissake !
(And a good reason to have such friffery, is that it kind of absolves us of guilt over our own foolishness ‘ah, let the littlies work it out fer us’)
Let’em have their ice-cream, skateboards, friends and enemies. They’ll wag school, try this’n’ that and do a trade or Uni. Children are not really guilty of anything. Why are they learning this ?
Ethics and Cosmology (yeah, that’ll be next), are studies borne out of everything else. They’re too difficult to grasp properly unless you are a professional learner. Children and youth are too young.

marley says:

04:00pm | 24/04/10

Actually, I think Sophie has it wrong.  It’s not the kids that need lessons in ethics, it our glorious political class. 

Lesson 1.  Tell the truth.  If you can’t tell the truth, at least don’t lie.

Lesson 2.  Put the needs of the country ahead of the needs of whatever party it is that you represent.  And put the needs of the majority ahead of the needs of the special interest groups who support you.

Lesson 3. If a policy is good, regardless of whether the opposition thought it up, support it.  If a policy is mediocre, improve it.  If a policy is lousy, reject it, even if it’s your own policy.

Lesson 4.  Never accept gifts, favours or donations from those with an interest in the decisions you render.  This means you do not get free meals, seats to sporting events, invitations to gala functions, airline tickets, hotel rooms, campaign donations, equipment for your kid’s footy team, from developers, financiers, heads of large corporatiions, heads of small corporations, airline exectives, Amnesty International, media moguls, high-profile entertainers or the guy who runs the supermarket in your town.

Lesson 5:  you are the elected servant of the people you represent.  Behave in accordance with that truth.  If you cannot, then ethically, you have only one choice.

There are no doubt many other lessons to be added, but if politicians could manage even these few (heck, if they could manage even one)  they might begin to earn some respect.  And we might even hear one of them lecture us on ethics without rolling on the floor in laughter.

Terry Wright says:

07:34pm | 24/04/10

FTA: “In today’s fast paced world, where concepts of right and wrong are increasingly blurred in a stream of You-Tube-anything-goes behaviour, ethics education could be incredibly beneficial.”

What has “today’s fast paced world” and “You-Tube-anything-goes behaviour” got to do with ethics? It’s only a social conservative that would think these factors determine ethics and it sounds more like it’s modern society that Sophie doesn’t like. She has made it clear that she disapproves of anything that oversteps conservative moral standards and so called “family values”. I hate to break it you Sophie, but the 1950s are over.

FTA: “But the critical question is who determines what is ethical? Do we look at the conduct of public figures to create modern yardsticks of ethical behaviour? Do we look to our political leaders?”

As nearly every Australian keeps telling her and Conroy, Abbott, Rudd, Howard, Nile, Fielding, Atkinson/Rann, Porter/Barnett etc., ... it’s not political leaders or the government who should determine what’s morally good for us and what’s not.

FTA: “Is it ethical to spend someone else’s money in such a self-serving bribe in order to score a personal political win?”

Doesn’t Sophie and her cohorts do this every time they publicly cry for more “Tough on Drugs” action? They bribe the public with promises of cracking down on drugs to score a “personal political win”. The truth though is that most of what they say are blatant lies or exaggerations to stir up public fear and drug hysteria. That’s what I call unethical.

If you follow the scientific/medical evidence, the “Tough on Drugs” policies she pushes have failed miserably and do not deter drug use. Does Sophie tell this to the public? She keeps criticising the government for not supporting the US “War on Drugs” although it has caused thousands of unnecessary deaths and millions of broken lives. Is this ever mentioned? Her recommendations are unscientific, proven to fail and dangerous to society yet Sophie and the Libs regularly tell the public that we need these policies to protect our children. Isn’t this disingenuous and unethical?

By ignoring research, the facts and the science/medical community to promote a popular vote winning strategy like “Tough on Drugs”, is some of the most appalling and unethical behaviour I have witnessed in politics. That and calling political opponents, “Soft on Drugs” because they want evidence based drug policies that actually work. But to then question the ethics of opposing politicians is just farcical. The fact is, I have never once found Sophie to be honest or ethical when talking about drug issues. She seem perfectly happy to let families be ripped apart by insane drug laws and heavily addicted people be sentenced to years in jail. All for what? - popularity - votes - power.

It’s so simple, Sophie. If you have done your homework yet still push draconian, cruel drug laws that you know have never worked, then you are unethical and not fit to be in a position of power. But, if you actually believe what your saying is true then you are just too thick to be making decisions for us and the ethical question is, should you remain in office. Sadly for you Sophie, that’s how ethics work.

Robert Smissen of God's Own Country, Rural SA says:

12:12am | 25/04/10

Sophie you tell ‘em love,  You tell ‘em! ! !

John Ryan says:

12:36am | 25/04/10

I would have thought that being lectured about ethics by a Liberal Senator ,is just to funny for words

monkeytypist says:

07:31am | 25/04/10

The fact that, after a decade of “bribes” and “blackmail” from the Howard government toward state governments (e.g. withholding federal funding for universities, TAFEs and road/infrastructure projects unless the state government agreed to its draconian workplace relations regimes) it suddenly becomes not OK once the ALP is in charge.  What about the private health insurance rebate Sophie?  How is that not a “bribe” by the government in an attempt to get its own way?  What about the millions in taxpayer funds that were spent by the Howard government on advertising campaigns to justify (not explain) its policy positions?

I hope that in addition to ethics classes we see civics classes introduced so students become better trained at recognising such appalling cynicism.

Liz Aitken says:

10:39am | 25/04/10

So Sophie, I take it that your ethics include negotiating deals in good faith and backing out at the last minute (a’la ETS)?  You want to teach your children that your word is not your bond?  Or are you going to split hairs and call that a moral issue rather than an ethical one.  How can you possibly explain that away?

I think you had better start with a lesson on “how to spot hypocracy” before we start on lessons in ethics as described by the current liberal party.

Bin says:

04:51pm | 25/04/10

When I think about how Rudd will go down in history as our worst PM so far it fills me with warmth. This knucklehead has half baked policies, ministers as incompetent as a $3 bill and when things don’t work out throw tax payers money till the problem goes away. I mean even my postie can be PM if throwing tax payers money and borrowing more monies is the mode of operations. I thought we voted in someone who was going to use his brain to solve problems. Get off the Sunrise show and get to work Mr. PM!

Vicki PS says:

07:44am | 26/04/10

Actually, basic ethics isn’t that difficult, at least for the prototypical ‘person in the street’.  It only ever seems to be politicians and senior executives who find tortuous ethical dilemmas in every trivial decision.

Following on from the Fitzgerald Report in Queensland, EARC (the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission) was charged with reviewing public sector ethics issues and developing codes of conduct for Queensland public servants.  A large-scale survey of public servants conducted by EARC found that, in general, public officers had a good grasp of their ethical obligations.

In five years or so of educating employees of a Queensland public agency on ethics and conduct, I similarly found that the average base grade employee or line manager had little difficulty identifying appropriate standards of conduct when faced with the kinds of ethical issues a public official might expect to confront.  In particular, most could readily indentify a real or perceived conflict of interest, and suggest suitable courses of action to resolve or avoid the conflict.

Contrast this to the rationalisations and excuses spewed forth by pollies and senior execs caught with their snouts in the trough e.g. terribly difficult to understand and interpret the rules: honest mistake: it’s within the rules: I’m entitled, etc etc.  One is left to the conclusion that persons so conceptually limited should probably not occupy high office.

So it is with Ms Mirabella, it seems.  The example she has chosen to illustrate her thesis has nothing whasoever to do with public sector ethics, and everything to do with public relations.  From what I can see, Christine Nixon’s behaviour on Black Saturday, now being viewed under the microscope of 20/20 hindsight, might have been a public relations disaster, and may well have felt like salt rubbed into the wounds of disaster victims, but it does not indicate unethical conduct or lack of accountability.  Had she stayed publicly visible, wearing a hair shirt, the outcome of that terrible day would not have differed one iota.

gra gra says:

11:01am | 26/04/10

Teach children ethics? Who will teach them, and who will decide what is ethical and what is not? Not the pollies.When they front the pre-selection committee they are asked, “Do you have AIDS?,  Are you a member of the Communist Party? and, Do you have any ethics?”. A ‘Yes’ answer to any question means that you are history. Mind you, if an affirmative reply is truthfully required but you answer “No!”, you are still a chance even if only for being a good liar.
Wayne Fellhaeber is still fixed on his ‘how did howard lose?’ obsession, and can’t seem to accept reality. Howard is gone, Nelson is gone, Turnbull is gone, and Abbott is on the way. And all with only one Federal election! I must say that he has excelled himself with his latest political analysis. Hitler, Stalin? Nixon? Mugabe? Rudd?  Birds of a feather? Brilliant work, even for a Howardite. It seems you make little of what those first four did to so many millions. You are a sad man Wayne, but I wish you well in your recovery.

Marion Simpson says:

03:32pm | 26/04/10

Silly Old woman Sophie, well at least the Greens have to much sense to have an affaire with either you or Bronwyn Bishop. Thats not so much ethical as they have better taste