29 January 2009

Mr Porter finds a new role

| johnboy
Join the conversation
17

The ABC has the happy news that Mary Porter’s husband Ian De Landelles won’t be out in the cold after new anti-nepotism laws forced him out of his missus’ office.

He’s scored a gig in Mr Stanhope’s office.

What a relief. On the bright side at least it’s not another reporter parachuting into government PR.

Join the conversation

17
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

I just think we should say “employ who you want declare it to the assembly, be prepared to be scrutinised and if they don’t perform then the electorate can decide”. I see this as less of a problem than the “Stefaniak purchase”.

Why did they bother bringing in the law if it can be circumvented so easily. I would love the Libs to ask how much the whole process cost and what benefits accrued to the taxpayer for this law?

sepi said :

yeh but how can outsiders know if he is any good or not. pollies need to be seen to be doing the right thing as well as doing it. govt is supposed to be best practice in these things.

and how do other staff deal with someone in a lower position who is married to the boss?

he can’t be the only person who is right for the role. i don’t mind he’s in jon’s office, but working for his partner is va bit much.

I hear what you’re saying Sepi and have to say I’ve been seriously aggrieved by instances of blatant nepotism during my previous career in the public service. That said, the situation is alleviated somewhat by Ian now being in Stanhopes office rather than that of Ms Porter.

yeh but how can outsiders know if he is any good or not. pollies need to be seen to be doing the right thing as well as doing it. govt is supposed to be best practice in these things.

and how do other staff deal with someone in a lower position who is married to the boss?

he can’t be the only person who is right for the role. i don’t mind he’s in jon’s office, but working for his partner is va bit much.

And that, skid, is the sensible middle ground I’ve been looking forut didn’t articulate properly (I blame the heat – and must climb on the roof to protest). Not ‘not’ hiring someone because they’re family but not only hiring them because they’re family either!

Nepotism is around, but if the process is open enough to be able to show that the most appropriate applicant got the job and that they are qualified for the role, I have no major personal problems with it, so long as correct processes aren’t circumvented in executing said role.

johnboy said :

BerraBoy68 said :

So if two highly competant people happen to be in a relationship, with one person having more power than the other, should we loose the competance of the less-powered person just to prove a point?!

Yes.

Sorry JB, I don’t agree. Why should we settle for the 2nd best person for any important position just because their boss also happens to be their employer.

If Ian was incompetant I’d have no hesitation in crying foul, but he’s not. He’s actually very good at his job.

BerraBoy68 said :

So if two highly competant people happen to be in a relationship, with one person having more power than the other, should we loose the competance of the less-powered person just to prove a point?!

Yes.

So if two highly competant people happen to be in a relationship, with one person having more power than the other, should we loose the competance of the less-powered person just to prove a point?!

What is a bit distrurbing is that the laws were bought it to avoid nepotism – and within a few milliseconds Stanhope has showed the wway to get around it.

So whats the law worth? What a waste of time passing it – I would love to know how much it cost in public servant time assembly time – all for this to happen.

The tax law has division 4 A – which allows people to look past the black letter of the law and to the intent. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck then in all liklihood it is a duck.

Is Canberra not distrubed that the pattern of behaviour of Stanhope it to use their tax dollars like his own – he appoints his political opponent just months out from an election to ensure that he is removed from the race and then bypasses is own anti-nepotism laws by appointing the husband of a close colleague.

I’m just waiting for a “don’t you worry about that”

Irrespective of how good a job the man in qustion does, still looks like nepotism to me!

I find Ian to be very competent and professional political operator and I am certainly not a Labor supporter. He has a common touch and I believe a lot of Mary’s success is due to him.

He has to be an asset for the Chief Minister’s office; especially considering some of the crap that has worked there before.

He’s a former Grassby colleague, back when the Grassbys ran the Belconnen Labor Branch.

I’ve had dealings with Ms Porters office and have also spoken to Ian. I have to say I have absolutely no problems with his professionalism or the role he was filling in her office.

All I can say is that Ms Porter’s loss is Mr Stanehope’s gain!

So what’s he doing for Stanhope?

And what’s Penelope Layland’s new policy role – Poetry for the Masses?

Ian is actually highly regarded in these sorts of roles.

Another example of where mis-placed nepotism creates problems for the genuinely skilled.

The story on here was that he actually was qualified for the role in Porter’s office. I’m not sure how to feel about this. On one hand it feels like getting around the rules but on the other hand if the bloke can do the job then… maybe not so bad.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.