Bishop’s plagiarism tells an uncomfortable story about neoliberalism
|
To be pinged once for plagiarism might be a misfortune; twice looks like carelessness. Murray Hansen works for Julie Bishop. Hansen is — or, at least in my dealings with him, has always seemed to be — smart, good-humoured and reliable. There are quite a few staff round this place whom one would obtain bucketloads of schadenfreude (what is the measurement unit for schadenfreude anyway?) from seeing publicly humiliated, but Hansen’s certainly not one of them. Yet he’s put his hand up to cop the blame for stealing material from a New Zealand commentator for Bishop’s contribution to a book on the Liberals. Nevertheless, Bishop is, to use one of those terms that only ever occurs in newspapers, “embroiled” in another plagiarism scandal. Unfortunately, the last one was blamed on staff as well. When Brendan Nelson was Opposition Leader, he centralised Coalition staffing in his office. Most Shadow Ministers were given one adviser who had to be media contact as well as chief adviser, researcher, transcript wrangler and much else besides. The Government’s reduction of staffing numbers across the board put further pressure on them. Even Government Ministers struggled with the lack of staff, but at least they had the Public Service working for them. Shadow Ministers had nothing. As always, one shouldn’t feel any sympathy for the Coalition, which pulled every trick in the book and then some to maximise its political advantage while in office. The conservatives earned several decades worth of bad political karma for what they did in office. Nevertheless, limited staff resources aren’t conducive to an effective Opposition, which is a necessary component of a democracy. When Malcolm Turnbull became leader, he sensibly re-allocated staff out of his office and back to shadow ministers, taking some of the burden off their advisers. Kate Walsh recently joined Julie Bishop’s office as media adviser. But it was while Hansen was still running the show alone that the plagiarism occurred. When Hansen says Bishop’s piece was knocked together quickly because they had no staff, it sounds entirely plausible, even if it doesn’t change the fact that it was a dumb thing to do in the first place. And who on earth is Roger Kerr? From New Zealand’s Business Roundtable, apparently. If, as some of us have done, you spend extended periods of time across the Tasman, you’ll hear constantly about the Business Roundtable, which fancies itself as a sort of independent state within New Zealand peopled only by rugged individualists and aggressive deregulationists. It also, at least for this juvenile-minded correspondent, automatically evokes that Monty Python song, but that’s another story. But if you’re going to plagiarise someone in a piece on the future of Liberal Party, there are better people to steal from. Friedrich von Hayek? Milton Friedman? Margaret Thatcher? Ronald Reagan? No, they went for … Roger Kerr. The bigger problem — and in this sense the timing of the Peter van Onselen book to which Bishop was contributing might be slightly unfortunate — is that the Liberals need to acknowledge that the ideological ground has shifted substantially in recent weeks. Ideology usually takes years or decades to evolve or fall out of favour. No longer. In keeping with the remorseless acceleration of pretty much everything now, in a few short weeks the hitherto impregnable deregulatory, anti-government tenets of neoliberalism have been put to flight. If anyone was in any doubt, Alan Greenspan’s admission not merely of error but of shock at how wrong he was last week sealed the deal. Regulation and a strong role for government are back. The Liberal Party, having been a somewhat reluctant adherent of neoliberalism (it could never bring itself to really embrace the bit about small government — too many votes to buy and too many Nationals in the joint party room), must now rethink its language and work out just how much market intervention it supports and why. Quoting old-school deregulationists, with or without footnotes, isn’t going to help with that. Oh, and I stole that first line from Oscar Wilde. |
|
|
|
21 Comments
Its not who she stole the material from, rather the fact this is the second time she has been caught out. Once ok it was a mistake and the staffer put their hand up to take the rap. Twice, and again it was a staff member who took the blame. This cold, iceberg type person is losing so much credibility it continues the sorry state of affairs the Oposition finds itself in. This is the shadow treasurer!!!! More like the hapless out of her depth bionic woman.
I thoght in my honest opion if you quoted from some one in writing or verbally. and made sure you put it on Paper where you got the Quote, and put the quote in brackets, and muke sure people know from the begging it was not your thoughts, or brain power. perhaps I am wrong
They might not have had advisors in their offices but they certainly all had the same three electorate staff as everyone else so who cares.
But to rip off someone else and pretend it is a contribution to a book is pretty pathetic even for the thousand yard stare.
i feel very sorry for the young man in the office.
Why didn’t the shadow minister proof read her articles????
poor staffer
Kevin Charles Herbert: “It simply undermines the integrity of the discussion”
Which of course is a puerile argument except to dolts more interested in ad hominem attacks than debate …….
Not to try and chill the conversation, but don’t rely *too* much on anonymity. EG if you leaked an extremely sensitive document here, the government *would* lean on Crikey for the IP logs. I post a last name, but with my name, I can get away with it for the comments I offer.
I worked for a senator for 18 months. The job entailed flying back and forth during sitting weeks, helping to write speeches and so on.
Do not lecture me about the damn job.
I am assured that schadenfreude is measured in dollops.
What surprises me is that Julie Bishop thinks that plagiarising a whole chapter is less of a sin than plagiarising part of one.
Those eyes say it all. Vacant. Uncomprehending. Unsuitable for office.
Schadenfreude is measured in scoops of poo gelato
I heard the inside word about the “Government’s reduction of staffing numbers across the board” from a Liberal staffer. It turns out that the Opposition gets a fixed percentage of Government staffers (something between 20% and 30% I believe). By cutting Government staff (and getting the accolades which go with that from the public all too used to seeing staff numbers fly up and up), Rudd has also nobbled the Opposition. The Liberal staffer I was speaking to admitted it was a masterstroke of which Howard would have been proud.
If Bishop was prepared to put her name to something written for her by a staffer why would she give a second thought to who actually wrote it? You have to wonder who wrote her university essays ….
I feel the faint breeze of another ultra lighweight comment uttered by Crikey’s leading Coward Commentator…dare I mention his Little name, for fear of further ’ repwisals’ ……..really !!!!!!!!!!!!
’ Cathy ’ is one of those commentators who has a lot of unqualified, strident opinions, but who wouldn’t dare put her real name to them…….oooooh..no…..that would be just too realistic…..Crikey commenting is like a fantasy game for those permanently stuck in the 5th form.
So let’s just pretend that ’ Cathy ’ is say, a renegade Catholic nun, posting her comments secretly from the Mother Superior’s office…hurry now Cathy…you’ll miss evening prayers, you wicked girl !!!!!!
Cathy: you’re hiding behind a self created myth. How can it be argued against?
Simple. I’d suggest it’s best for all if anonymous commentators such as yourself, don’t comment on Crikey. It simply undermines the integrity of the discussion.
I’d trade your highly questionable right to comment anonymously, with the accepted view that commentators should have the fortitude to be identified with their views.
Obviously, you don’t .
Low levels of staffing my a*se! Have any other Shadow Ministers stuffed up to this extent? Can anyone point out a single original idea, let alone policy, Julie Bishop, has contributed?
Schadenfreude is measured in Nurembergs.
A good point to raise about the electorate staff Marilyn but as party and MP support staff their role isn’t to write speeches. As a splinter group of no particular sector of the workplace they’re hired out to MPs for the exclusive use of the MP. They serve the member, his or her party, family, friends and constituents - in that order. In the scheme of governance they’re as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. Up there in Queensland these servants multi-task from cleaning toilets to vacuuming and dusting to hand delivering mail (it saves the MP electorate allowance). They drive party members to and from party meetings, build and maintain data on party members and organize party functions and fund-raisers. In between, they try to juggle the needs of constituents that at times are far more pressing than the member’s. And that possibly explains why the Queensland parliament hands out compensation packages like Aspro’s and why Julie Bishop’s electorate staff could be time-strapped to pen her views on the Liberal Party.
Marilyn - not lecturing just stating facts. As a federal ministerial staffer trekking to and from the capital for nine years our speeches and policy statements were the charge of DLO’s and advisors. Electorate staff in Canberra weren’t mixing it with the bureacrats. Up in Queensland EO ministerial staff were made even more ineffectual with solid skills and experience wasted on party, member and office domestics. We both did the same job apparently but we’ve had vastly different workplace experiences. All because MPs and Senators are left to interpret the EO role. The parallel is the days of slavery where some got a good deal with a kind master and others well and truly suffered.
Kevin you’re a dag. I’ll give you a genuine commitment to never commenting on matters about which I have no first hand information. Problem is that out of the thousands of contributors to Crikey, I gather I’m not the only Cathy who posts comments under my first name. If we did people such as the ABC would sack us - Steven Crittenden for example. We don’t live in a free country these days as we’d so like to believe. Crikey is a blessing for offering anonymity with fairly good debate. I assumed you were in the same predicament.