Jobs for the Boys - Take that Zedley!

Gary Humphries’ appointment to the AAT and the recent ministerial reshuffle has prompted my thoughts to divert down the path of what might have been had the local Libs stuck with Gary Humphries rather than installing Zed Seselja as their Senate candidate. I remember hearing that, while in Opposition, Tony Abbott said Gary Humphries was the only member of the coalition team who had run a government before and so was a highly valued member of his front bench. With Cabinet deciding that he was the right person to head the AAT in the ACT, it suggests that high opinion was not restricted to Tony Abbott. As the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel for his last 3 years as a Senator and given the high regard in which he’s held, I think its highly likely that Humphries would now be in the outer Ministry or possibly even Cabinet. In either case Canberra would have a respected voice in the highest levels of government.

In contrast it seems that more than 8 years in our assembly, including 5 as opposition leader, and taking out an esteemed colleague in such an unsavoury manner has not been enough to win Seselja promotion to Parliamentary Secretary, leaving him a back bencher. Having minimal influence with the Government’s leadership, the only advantage of a back bencher is in being able to publicly defend your constituents when Government policy disadvantages them as they’re not bound by ministerial solidarity. I’m still waiting to hear Zed offer any alternatives to Government policies that negatively impact Canberra. With his ineffectiveness in standing up for the ACT and given the swing against the government that’s likely given the polls, I wonder if the people of the ACT will see fit to send the local Libs a message in 2016 and finally elect a Green to that second senate seat?

MERC600 said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

John, were you not recently championing the issue of “gender balance” (whatever that is)?
You now chuck that out and use the phrase “jobs for the boys” which is very gender specific.
In the ACT it should be “jobs for the girls”, surely.

Not quite sure what you mean, but you know who’s got friends when one gets $445,000 and one gets $18,000.

Your spot on John about having friends who look after you.. One bloke who knows his friends, from both sides of politics, is Kim Beazley. Regret I’m unsure what his stipend is, but I suspect its healthy
And do yourself a favour and have a google squiz at the residence he has to live in. Makes the Lodge look like stables

As Beazley is the ambassador to the US, I would imagine his lodgings are provided by his employer, that being DFAT. Absolutely nothing to do with LNP or ALP.

John, do explain to us the Al Grassby factor – just why he was protected by Labor. That’s more of an issue than mere wages. There’s a dead man who can’t talk.

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

John, were you not recently championing the issue of “gender balance” (whatever that is)?
You now chuck that out and use the phrase “jobs for the boys” which is very gender specific.
In the ACT it should be “jobs for the girls”, surely.

Not quite sure what you mean, but you know who’s got friends when one gets $445,000 and one gets $18,000.

Your spot on John about having friends who look after you.. One bloke who knows his friends, from both sides of politics, is Kim Beazley. Regret I’m unsure what his stipend is, but I suspect its healthy
And do yourself a favour and have a google squiz at the residence he has to live in. Makes the Lodge look like stables

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

John, were you not recently championing the issue of “gender balance” (whatever that is)?
You now chuck that out and use the phrase “jobs for the boys” which is very gender specific.
In the ACT it should be “jobs for the girls”, surely.

Not quite sure what you mean, but you know who’s got friends when one gets $445,000 and one gets $18,000.

I am not going to spell it out for you John as everyone else on this blog knows what I mean.

dungfungus said :

John, were you not recently championing the issue of “gender balance” (whatever that is)?
You now chuck that out and use the phrase “jobs for the boys” which is very gender specific.
In the ACT it should be “jobs for the girls”, surely.

Not quite sure what you mean, but you know who’s got friends when one gets $445,000 and one gets $18,000.

John, were you not recently championing the issue of “gender balance” (whatever that is)?
You now chuck that out and use the phrase “jobs for the boys” which is very gender specific.
In the ACT it should be “jobs for the girls”, surely.

And the sample size is….

OK John, let’s call you on this. You are essentially stating that Andrea Hull, John Morse, Marian Gibney, John Hirst, Benjamin Chow, Craddock Morton, Daniel Gilbert, Sally Anne Hasluck, John Fleming and Barbara Piscitelli should all have their stipends reduced along with Janet Albrechtson. How much should they be paid?

Gary Humphries is extremely popular in Canberra John. Save your breath!