Kevin Rudd

[Smurf1976]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

I see the political aspect absolutely. It's not a wise move to keep the business. Actually it's outright stupid.

But I've seen nothing anywhere to convince me that there is an actual conflict of interest. Would Rudd be PERSONALLY handing work to this company? Possible but I strongly doubt it.

Surely there would be a transparent tender process run by persons other than the PM himself that is subject to audit? If not then there damn well should be for this and every other significant spending of my taxes - a process that should automatically include the "in house" option in addition to all tenders received.

 

[Prospector]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

Well, I dont actually put much trust in the 'transparency' of the tender process to be honest. I have seen tenders worded specifically so that only a preferred provider can meet the specifications. Not necessarily Federal ones, but who knows?

But where can you draw the line? Brothers? Sons? Nieces?

Actually, what really suprises me is that the Unions and their comrades and working class people have as their head, a man who is clearly married to a multi millionaire!

Anyone betting on a change in leader if Labor gets in

 

[Mofra]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

Anyone betting on a change in leader if Labor gets in

Wouldn't think so straight away, but Gillard is clearly a Union stooge/puppet who has constructed an alternate IR policy that advocates compulsory unionism by stealth (re: negotion fees charged to non-unionised employees), so in many respects the union bosses will have what they want anyway.

 

[Prospector]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

Wouldn't think so straight away, but Gillard is clearly a Union stooge/puppet who has constructed an alternate IR policy that advocates compulsory unionism by stealth (re: negotion fees charged to non-unionised employees), so in many respects the union bosses will have what they want anyway.

Ah, but what do they want? Obvious power methinks and I dont think Rudd will give them enough Kudos.

 

[somesortoftrader]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1934014.htm


"If I haven't done that or if I've caused discomfort to anybody, including Kevin, I'm really sorry."

Gosh... do you think they even talk?

 

[Mofra]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

Ah, but what do they want? Obvious power methinks and I dont think Rudd will give them enough Kudos.

Labour still obtain much of their funding from unions and the estimates of the increase in union fees due to the Labour IR policy is staggering, so in many respects the unions can have as much power as they need within the Labour framework - with Rudd appearing to be largely factionless (although slightly aligned to the right faction).

It appears the unions will be able to wield a significantly greater power over their employers than before the Howard era, even if any significant policital power is subdued in the short term. Union militancy is back on the agenda.

 

[Prospector]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

Mofra it really surprises me that the Govt is not using the fear of militant unionism in their campaigns to claw back some votes. There would be so many people out there who are thinking of voting for Rudd, but the thought of rampant Unionism would send them running back to Howard.

Maybe they will us it later, but it might be too late by then!

 

[Nifty]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

What a narrow minded bunch there are, indicative of this post.
There is absolutely no conflict of interest in Rein's case as neither she nor her husband can have any input into the process that determines winning tenders for government work.
I agree with redrob entirely,but we are dealing with politics here,and that necessitates the encompasing of strange idiosynchrosies,such as lowest common denominator catch-all,the swinginging voters who want to end the Liberal dynasty,but are feeling guilty and will jump at the chance to justify voting against Rudd;Those people who simply "Just want a change"
Anyway,Let the dogs bark,the caravan moves on.

 

[Archie]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

I find it a bit strange that the govt is not really sticking it to the Labour party over this issue. It all seems a bit soft at the moment.
Is it because they are scared that someone might find that someone in the Libs has a wife or husband that runs a business that may be seen to have a conflict of interest also.
The memory of the Rudd / Brian Bourke fiasco may be fresh in their minds.
Personally I dont think the public could care less as we can all see thru the lies & deceptions of politics in normal times let alone during an election year.

 

[greggy]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

Wouldn't think so straight away, but Gillard is clearly a Union stooge/puppet who has constructed an alternate IR policy that advocates compulsory unionism by stealth (re: negotion fees charged to non-unionised employees), so in many respects the union bosses will have what they want anyway.

I used to like Ms Gillard, but have been put off by her recent behaviour. She represents Labor's past especially in the way in which she told business to basically keep out of the IR debate. Irrespective of one's views on IR, surely the business community has the same democratic right as anyone else to air their views and contribute to debate. I never hear Ms Gillard telling the unions to keep quiet.
As for the debate in relation to Rudd's wife, I have 2 points to make.
1. She is a smart businesswoman who is providing employment to many Australians who might otherwise be unemployed.
2. IMO its all a matter of perception. If Mr Rudd is PM whilst his wife remains in business and any new contracts are awarded to her, many people are going to think, rightly or wrongly, that she only got them because of her husband's position. The Coalition is looking for weak spots as they are well behind in the polls and Rudd's wife may well be an easier target than her husband.
Hence, I think that its best for her to sell the company. I'm sure with all the hard work she's put into it that she will make many millions from it.

 

[Prospector]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

There is absolutely no conflict of interest in Rein's case as neither she nor her husband can have any input into the process that determines winning tenders for government work.

You are very trusting about the way in which tenders can be written.

 

[rederob]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

You are very trusting about the way in which tenders can be written.

Prospector
Copies of Job Network tenders are publicly available.
If you find anything that looks a bit dodgy or skewed you are better than the legal teams that scrutinise these tenders and ensure probity is achieved.
That aside, Rudd wants to be PM. He cannot afford distractions leading into the election and Rein could become one BIG distraction, irrespective of the merits of her business and its operations. In fact, leading up to all elections the parties go to considerable lengths to address potential liabilities. Where they cannot be eliminated the parties prepare defensive positions that we call "spin" on a situation.
As we near the election I expect the polls will see the Coalition much closer to Labor. However, overall I think the Whitlam theme of "it's time" is already playing out, and the question will be by how many seats Labor hold a majority.
And then it will remain to be seen if they can rebalance the Senate: Which I doubt unless there is a landslide to Labor.

 

[greggy]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

Prospector
Copies of Job Network tenders are publicly available.
If you find anything that looks a bit dodgy or skewed you are better than the legal teams that scrutinise these tenders and ensure probity is achieved.
That aside, Rudd wants to be PM. He cannot afford distractions leading into the election and Rein could become one BIG distraction, irrespective of the merits of her business and its operations. In fact, leading up to all elections the parties go to considerable lengths to address potential liabilities. Where they cannot be eliminated the parties prepare defensive positions that we call "spin" on a situation.
As we near the election I expect the polls will see the Coalition much closer to Labor. However, overall I think the Whitlam theme of "it's time" is already playing out, and the question will be by how many seats Labor hold a majority.
And then it will remain to be seen if they can rebalance the Senate: Which I doubt unless there is a landslide to Labor.

I reckon that many of those swinging to Labor, may well vote for the minor parties in the Senate just as an act of protection. IMO Mr Rudd is a safer pair of hands than Whitlam was. Whitlam had a number of good ideas, but he spent far too much money too quickly. I also didn't like his lack of support for the East Timorese let alone the Indonesian invasion. The East Timorese helped us out in a big way during World War 2 and look how we repaid during the mid 70s.

 

[Rafa]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

it looks like the decision has been made...

Interesting article by Glen Milne in the The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21803289-601,00.html

 

[Mumbank]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

I can see why she probably should sell, but I think its a damn shame.

It would be good to have a PM who had a wife who was a businesswoman as well as a wife/mother and thus had some idea of the state of nation as well as the cost of living and the effects of the economy on families, rather than a "stand behind her man smiling face" that doesn't.

On the other hand, if Therese is in receipt of contracts from this current Government who no doubt know she is the wife of the Leader of the Opposition, then those contracts must be pretty fair as the current Government would not want to be giving any favours for anyone to do with to the Opposition.

While it would no doubt be perceived as a conflict of interest if Rudd became PM it shouldn't as the contracts were already in place as awarded by the Liberal Government.

Anyway I think she and her company are doing a wonderful job that none of the other Govt or semi Govt agencies have been able to do and that is getting long term unemployed people back to the workforce, thus providing huge savings from Welfare Budget.

I hope whoever buys it, keeps up the good work.

 

[Julia]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

Thanks for that, Rafa. It's an excellent summary.

The initial embarrassment about her underpaid employees appears now completely forgotten in a wash of sympathy and admiration for her "courageous decision".

This whole episode can only help Kevin Rudd. Many swinging voters will (perhaps subconsciously) feel that because his wife has made such a sacrifice for his political ambitions, they are somewhat obliged to give Rudd their vote as vindication of said sacrifice.

 

[greggy]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

Thanks for that, Rafa. It's an excellent summary.

The initial embarrassment about her underpaid employees appears now completely forgotten in a wash of sympathy and admiration for her "courageous decision".

This whole episode can only help Kevin Rudd. Many swinging voters will (perhaps subconsciously) feel that because his wife has made such a sacrifice for his political ambitions, they are somewhat obliged to give Rudd their vote as vindication of said sacrifice.

Hi Julia,

This is one swinging voter who is not fooled by his wife's "sacrifice." She only made this "sacrifice" after receiving bad publicity. If she was really genuine about it, she may well have come out earlier with this decision.
One of my friends was sacked by her company the day before Easter. Whilst they were very happy with his work they told him that he was no longer required. Prior to his sacking, he like many others was expected to work unpaid overtime every night. Its one thing for Mr Rudd to complain about employees conditions, but its certainly another when his wife's company has been exploiting the new IR laws for her own benefit as she controls around 97% of it.

 

[Aedo]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

Hi Julia,
...snip...
One of my friends was sacked by her company the day before Easter. Whilst they were very happy with his work they told him that he was no longer required. Prior to his sacking, he like many others was expected to work unpaid overtime every night. Its one thing for Mr Rudd to complain about employees conditions, but its certainly another when his wife's company has been exploiting the new IR laws for her own benefit as she controls around 97% of it.

I think this is really the key issue - the conflict of interest regarding govt tenders isn't much chop; but if Rudd can't even convince his wife on employment strategy what hope has he of convincing the rest of the community?

 

[Sprinter79]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

If you can get away with it under the law, go for it (I have issues with that attitude, but that's what is happening). It may not be ethical or moralistic, but it's legal.

Back on topic... whether the conflict of interest is real or perceived, it doesn't matter. What matters is that there MAY be an issue, and it's potential ammo for the govt.

Now that the decision has been made, it puts the ball in the govt's court, and can be seen as Labor taking the high ground with conflicts of interest.

In a further move, an attempt to cut-off potential govt mud slinging IMO, Rudd has forbidden his potential ministers from contact with his brother, a known lobbiest. Further taking the high ground on potential conflicts of interest.

 

[chicken]

Re: Rudd's wifes company - Should it be sold?

If you can get away with it under the law, go for it (I have issues with that attitude, but that's what is happening). It may not be ethical or moralistic, but it's legal.

Back on topic... whether the conflict of interest is real or perceived, it doesn't matter. What matters is that there MAY be an issue, and it's potential ammo for the govt.

Now that the decision has been made, it puts the ball in the govt's court, and can be seen as Labor taking the high ground with conflicts of interest.

In a further move, an attempt to cut-off potential govt mud slinging IMO, Rudd has forbidden his potential ministers from contact with his brother, a known lobbiest. Further taking the high ground on potential conflicts of interest.

After listing to Mr Rudd and his deputy woman...after all Mr Rudd is a mulltimillionaire...NOT A BATTLER, as first was thought ,I come to the conclusion to stick with the old guard ,Mr Howard....as a change in these times is not a good idae....did not like the arrogance shown by Mr Rudds deputy as the workers of Australia will NOT be better off but could even be crunched more....as, all politicians have a bad side...at least we know Mr Howards ,who I must say has impressed me...after all he even did something about that tough emigration minister vanderstone,and the minister of finance also delivered...should the Goverment change...we will all regret it as Australia will get back to Labours policy which will be detramental to ALL of us...there is NO FREE lunch for anyone here...just an untried team which may put us back to thegood old days ,becoming a banana republic again ...its a tough choice..