Sex and Ministerial Standards
Malcolm Turnbull needs to rethink his amendment to the 2003 Statement of Ministerial Standards. (See link below) He also owes Barnaby Joyce an apology for the unnecessary, inappropriate and judgmental public statement on the pain Barnaby caused his family.
Turnbull is within his rights to criticise Barnaby for his performance as a Minister but Barnaby’s personal life is none of Turnbull’s or the public’s business, and Turnbull’s public statements condemning Barnaby are defamatory and should be treated as such. Consequently, Barnaby was well within his rights to respond angrily, describing Turnbull’s remarks as ‘inept and ‘unnecessary’ and alleging that they caused ‘further harm’ to his family.
Marital breakdown affects around one in two Australian marriages, and third parties figure in many if not most divorces. No matter what rules are in place, in their personal lives Ministers are not, will not, and consequently should not be expected to be any different – after all, they are human.
Turnbull’s new Ministerial Standard specifically prohibits a Minister having sex with a member of their own parliamentary staff. Clearly the Prime Minister cobbled this standard together without too much thought, and it has been rightly ridiculed by social media and mainstream media journalists.
The pain, harm and any public dismay caused by a Minister’s affair and marital breakdown does not depend on whether that Minister’s extra-marital affair is with a member of their staff, with a member of someone else’s staff, another Member of Parliament, another Minister, or an unemployed person.
Why prohibit sex between two consenting adults, irrespective of whether they are married or not, as the PM stressed. Would we really consider that a Minister was not acting as a Minister should if they fell in love and spent time with a staff member after work and on weekends? What does the sex being referred to include? – sexual intercourse, oral sex, masturbation, sexual touching, kissing? Would steamy emails or sexting suffice? Would romantic walks around the lake or dinners also qualify? There is clearly a need to explain why sex with a staffer is singled out while sex with another Minister’s staffer is not. Surely the Prime Minister is astute enough to see these loopholes.
If it’s misuse of power by a Minister in their dealings with an employee that is the target of the new standard, then it appears to be already be covered in the existing Ministers’ Standards. If it’s not explicit enough, then make it so, but why limit the standard to sex?
Similarly, the existing prohibition on the employment of family members and partners needs to be abolished or reworded to reflect the underlying concern. We know that Party hacks and those rewarded for campaign contributions account for many appointments by Ministers. Would we really think less of Ministers who chose instead to employ an eminently competent family member, partner or persons with whom they ‘hook up’. Transparency in employment practices could ensure that no misuse of power and discretion occurs in the hiring of staff.
The Prime Minister must close this can of worms if we are not to move even closer to becoming an America like morally hypocritical society in which the worthiness of public figures is assessed on the basis of their personal morality. What next? Will we poke our noses into our Ministers’ religious beliefs and the regularity of church attendance?