Under the Rugg: staffers work long hours for big bucks. Like it or leave it

David Ritchie writes: It’s a pretty complicated story but as an employer my sympathies are with Monique Ryan (“The wildest details of the Rugg v Ryan affidavits“). I know some senior staffers who worked for the previous Coalition government — it’s a bastard of a job and it sucks the life out of everyone working there. I feel sorry for Sally Rugg, but she obviously isn’t cut out for a senior staffer’s role while the work culture in and around federal Parliament is so broken.

Terence Mills writes: Rugg worked for only five months and was on a salary of $136,607 a year plus $30,205 to compensate for unpaid overtime. Overtime is normally required when the House is sitting, which is an average of 67 days a year. Two efforts to resolve this dispute through mediation have failed and the matter will now go before the Federal Court at substantial cost — the objective seems to be substantial damages as the Commonwealth is frequently seen as a soft touch. 

How the other half lives!

Erik Kulakauskas writes: After the Albanese government’s appalling decision to cut staff numbers for independent MPs, Ryan has every right to expect her staff to “go the extra mile”. Rugg would be raking in more than $200k a year but reckons she should not be required to work 60 to 70 hours a week. I know many folk who work more hours than that and for half the income. 

I totally agree with Guy Rundle (“The teals are in a climate war. There’s no time for the bitter tears of Sally Von Won’t”). If Rugg is not happy with working 60-70 hours a week she should do something less onerous and less demanding — and presumably less well-paid. Ryan has a tough enough job to do without dealing with the Ruggs of the world.

Cheryl Marquez writes: It seems the working relationship between Rugg and Ryan became fraught when Rugg hopped on a plane knowing she was infectious with COVID. This rebuffed her employer’s medical and ethical standards. For Rugg then to allegedly attack her on unfair work principles only aggravated the situation. The long hours seem to be related to certain events/occasions and presumably when Parliament sits — which is not that often, and is thus an accepted part of the job. 

There is the other issue, though, that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s decision to cut back on staff numbers for the independents needs to be addressed. If Albanese is really serious about running a democratic government, he needs to backtrack on this one.

Working like a Chalmers

Catherine Rossiter writes: In this age of trolls and media gotchas and huge amounts of ignorance, it is a massive challenge for any government trying to identify and sell the policies that set us up for the future (“Labor needs to sell its story on super before the newspapers do“). And let there be no mistake: the challenges ahead are enormous — with international relations and climate change topping the list, but closely followed by poverty, inequity, energy security, health, education and supply chain security.

Full credit to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers for recognising the need to address these challenges — but how to sell them? The treasurer’s budget speech should allow them to spell out a coherent narrative (which Josh Frydenberg never did), but maybe it’s time to institute a PM’s annual address to the nation later in the year. Not so much a spending speech, but a comprehensive no-punches narrative on what lies ahead for the country and the steps that governments, corporations and citizens will have to take.  

The resulting discourse may or may not be civilised, but at least it should help Australians get a better handle on the big picture.

Rodney Swan writes: As a former employee of the Murdoch press, Dennis Atkins would know that no amount of logic, development of the proper storylines or even widespread public support would ever deter “The Australian” to ever be neutral on anything Labor or Jim Chalmers does or says.

The superannuation change is good policy and good politics, and most people know it is a necessary change. Atkins should have clearly pointed out that the message articulated by Chalmers coupled with the fact it would become reality after the next election is a pretty good story. Surely a promise has a life span of a parliamentary term and any action coming into effect in the following term does not constitute a broken promise.

A Barilaro of monkeys

Stuart Kennedy writes: If untold taxpayer dollars result in findings as extraordinary as these, I suggest we give up on ICACs, royal commissions et al. (“Cost of Barilaro investigations revealed, as ICAC finds no evidence of corruption“) I will do the investigations for half the price, in half the time, and with twice the results!

Fight fire with fire

Grace McCaughey writes: Of course Indigenous knowledge must be used almost in toto, and introduced plants must be eradicated (“‘I warned them’: bushfires are back and Indigenous practitioners say prevention strategies need work“). But that will take generations. Local Indigenous plants should be regulated mainly in fire-prone areas. Some people plant deciduous trees to help retard fire. But with ecosystems so changed, fire will persist.

Andrew Sutcliffe writes: If Indigenous peoples have been looking after the land for 40,000 years it makes sense to ask their opinion. Nothing the Europeans do seems to lessen the problem.

A ‘floke’ bloke

Dean Ellis writes: Your article “Australian anti-Islamic activist Shermon Burgess becomes the latest far-right figure to convert to Islam” prompted me to consider the adjective “woke”. It seems the word is now weaponised by the right in the perpetual culture wars without pushback.

May I humbly suggest the term “floke”, an adjective to mean “ignorant of racial prejudice and discrimination”. “Floke” has a balanced resonance to its sound; it invokes the ideas of “flake”, “floss” and “broke” and also invokes the ideas of “fear” and “loathing”, characteristics so typical of conservatives when confronted with change.

Defending the indefensible

Steve Brennan writes: First, the police force is simply a law enforcement agency. It is governments that make the laws and the courts dish out punishment according to the law. We know judgments are influenced by politics and vested interests (“‘State-sanctioned intimidation’: armed police raid home of climate protester who defaced painting”).

Joana Partyka did actually cause damage, so the cops came after her. I reckon sending six armed officers probably was intended to intimidate her, especially when you reflect that two officers were sent to a property in Queensland to investigate a missing person and were brutally murdered.

The “state” (all of them) has become anti-protest activism on climate change and environmental damage so we now have laws introduced quietly to help defend the fossil fuel industry. It’s merely the evolution of state capture by rich oligarchs who control our governments. They can’t justify what they are doing any more or the privileged position they occupy in the halls of power. So now the state has reverted to intimidation of those who embarrass it over its irresponsible lack of action in favour of its rich donors who can win and lose elections for them.

Disrupt Barrup Hub is an excellent cause and sadly the only way to give it a strong voice is to disrupt, because that’s how the world works. Interesting question though: how totalitarian will our state become to protect these vested interests?

If you’re pleased, peed off or piqued, get it off your chest by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.