Saw the Four Corners episode  about the Canberra bubble, and pretty much thought it came down to 'married people with kids' having consensual sex with 'other married people with kids'...

Actually the ones I felt sorry for and whose perspective I felt was completely absent from the program were Christian Porter and Alan Tudge's wives and Rachel Miller's husband...Surely all concerned were well aware that the  people they were jumping in the sack with were married..

My concern is this heavy drinking, carousing, highly sexualised (as Louise Milligan described it)  culture of the Canberrian bubble is being paid for by the tax payer...

And to be honest have always thought politicians reek of hypocrisy on most levels...But unless I'm married or partnered to any one of these politicians not too interested in who they are having consensual sex with..

Saw the Four Corners episode  about the Canberra bubble, and pretty much thought it came down to 'married people with kids' having consensual sex with 'other married people with kids'...

Actually the ones I felt sorry for and whose perspective I felt was completely absent from the program were Christian Porter and Alan Tudge's wives and Rachel Miller's husband...Surely all concerned were well aware that the  people they were jumping in the sack with were married..

My concern is this heavy drinking, carousing, highly sexualised (as Louise Milligan described it)  culture of the Canberrian bubble is being paid for by the tax payer...

And to be honest have always thought politicians reek of hypocrisy on most levels...But unless I'm married or partnered to any one of these politicians not too interested in who they are having consensual sex with..

Typical left wing reporting by the ABC. Shut them down.

Typical left wing reporting by the ABC. Shut them down.

Time to watch Paul Fletcher, probably up to something and wants to cover his tracks.

Our parliament is a disgrace, getting more like Italy's  Silvio Berlusconi's bunga bunga parties every day. Very good description by Triss it's a "shagging shop"

Our parliament is a disgrace, getting more like Italy's  Silvio Berlusconi's bunga bunga parties every day. Very good description by Triss it's a "shagging shop"

In the matter of fairness, these are the questions put to Buttrose and her Board. After reading the actual questions, I can see why the ABC could be considered biased.

Why does the board consider it is appropriate that the privacy of the attorney-general and minister Tudge (the ministers) should be compromised by the way in which the program deals extensively with aspects of their personal lives? How is this consistent with the stated importance of respect for privacy in the code of practice, including whether intrusion into private lives was proportionate in the circumstances?

How is it consistent with the code of practice’s reference to fair treatment and impartiality for the ABC to include in the program extensive materials regarding conduct over a quarter of a century ago by someone who was then a university student and even a school student?

The managing director told the Senate committee that all relevant information had been provided to the ministers who were the subject of the program. Is the board satisfied that this statement is true? What inquiries did the managing director make before making that statement?

Does the board consider it is consistent with the duty of accuracy and impartiality and the principle of fair and honest dealing that the program failed to report that the woman the subject of the alleged incident in the Public Bar and the subject of the alleged relationship with the attorney-general denied both these allegations to those preparing the program?

In light of these denials by the woman, does the board believe it was appropriate for the program to present statements by Senator [Sarah] Hanson-Young as purportedly corroborating Ms Miller’s allegations?

On what basis did the program determine that the claims concerned the same woman? Should the ABC have asked the woman whether she had spoken to Senator Hanson-Young? If the ABC did not ask this of the woman, does the board consider this to be consistent with its duties relating to accuracy and impartiality and the principle of fair and honest dealing?

Why does the board consider it appropriate and in the public interest that this woman’s privacy should be compromised by this program? How is the program, and the allegations contained within it, consistent with the stated importance of respect for privacy in the code of practice?

Why, in the judgement of the board, are the personal lives of politicians newsworthy?

If the board’s answer to the previous question is that the ministerial code makes it so, then:

a. which of the conduct alleged in the program does it say breached the ministerial code?

b. what is the relevance to the ministerial code of the allegations extensively made in the program concerning conduct by the attorney-general at several stages of his life before he became a minister?

Why in the judgement of the board is the existence of a consensual relationship between a politician and a staff member that occurred prior to the introduction of the ministerial code considered newsworthy?

Does the board consider that it is consistent with the duty of impartiality that the program deals with allegations solely against Liberal MPs? Does the board say that there are no such relationships involving Labor, Green or independent politicians?

How is it consistent with the duty of impartiality that the program did not disclose to viewers the strong political affiliations, opposed to the Liberal Party, of some of those who commented, including a lawyer long aligned with the labour movement, Mr Josh Bornstein and a former candidate for Labor preselection, Ms Jo Dyer?

How is it consistent with the duty of impartiality that the mix of those interviewed for the program was overwhelmingly weighted towards those either politically hostile towards the Liberal Party or personally hostile towards or motivated by animus against the ministers?

Why should an objective observer not conclude that the program evidenced clear bias against the Liberal Party, with this bias evident in the choice of persons interviewed, the making of specific allegations in the face of clear factual denials, and the fact that the program failed to investigate or report on conduct engaged in by Labor, Greens or independent politicians?

Why should an objective observer not conclude that the program demonstrates a failure by the board in its duty under section 8 of the ABC Act to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information by the ABC is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism?

In the matter of fairness, these are the questions put to Buttrose and her Board. After reading the actual questions, I can see why the ABC could be considered biased.

Why does the board consider it is appropriate that the privacy of the attorney-general and minister Tudge (the ministers) should be compromised by the way in which the program deals extensively with aspects of their personal lives? How is this consistent with the stated importance of respect for privacy in the code of practice, including whether intrusion into private lives was proportionate in the circumstances?

How is it consistent with the code of practice’s reference to fair treatment and impartiality for the ABC to include in the program extensive materials regarding conduct over a quarter of a century ago by someone who was then a university student and even a school student?

The managing director told the Senate committee that all relevant information had been provided to the ministers who were the subject of the program. Is the board satisfied that this statement is true? What inquiries did the managing director make before making that statement?

Does the board consider it is consistent with the duty of accuracy and impartiality and the principle of fair and honest dealing that the program failed to report that the woman the subject of the alleged incident in the Public Bar and the subject of the alleged relationship with the attorney-general denied both these allegations to those preparing the program?

In light of these denials by the woman, does the board believe it was appropriate for the program to present statements by Senator [Sarah] Hanson-Young as purportedly corroborating Ms Miller’s allegations?

On what basis did the program determine that the claims concerned the same woman? Should the ABC have asked the woman whether she had spoken to Senator Hanson-Young? If the ABC did not ask this of the woman, does the board consider this to be consistent with its duties relating to accuracy and impartiality and the principle of fair and honest dealing?

Why does the board consider it appropriate and in the public interest that this woman’s privacy should be compromised by this program? How is the program, and the allegations contained within it, consistent with the stated importance of respect for privacy in the code of practice?

Why, in the judgement of the board, are the personal lives of politicians newsworthy?

If the board’s answer to the previous question is that the ministerial code makes it so, then:

a. which of the conduct alleged in the program does it say breached the ministerial code?

b. what is the relevance to the ministerial code of the allegations extensively made in the program concerning conduct by the attorney-general at several stages of his life before he became a minister?

Why in the judgement of the board is the existence of a consensual relationship between a politician and a staff member that occurred prior to the introduction of the ministerial code considered newsworthy?

Does the board consider that it is consistent with the duty of impartiality that the program deals with allegations solely against Liberal MPs? Does the board say that there are no such relationships involving Labor, Green or independent politicians?

How is it consistent with the duty of impartiality that the program did not disclose to viewers the strong political affiliations, opposed to the Liberal Party, of some of those who commented, including a lawyer long aligned with the labour movement, Mr Josh Bornstein and a former candidate for Labor preselection, Ms Jo Dyer?

How is it consistent with the duty of impartiality that the mix of those interviewed for the program was overwhelmingly weighted towards those either politically hostile towards the Liberal Party or personally hostile towards or motivated by animus against the ministers?

Why should an objective observer not conclude that the program evidenced clear bias against the Liberal Party, with this bias evident in the choice of persons interviewed, the making of specific allegations in the face of clear factual denials, and the fact that the program failed to investigate or report on conduct engaged in by Labor, Greens or independent politicians?

Why should an objective observer not conclude that the program demonstrates a failure by the board in its duty under section 8 of the ABC Act to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information by the ABC is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism?

I have heard it said Woodstock that in a Cabinet scenario the leader of the government (be it a prime minister, premier or chief minister) is first among equals. Ms Berejiklian did not have an affair with a subordinate, she had an affair with another politician who, given an unusual  but not impossible course of events, could have been the premier.

Utter rubbish MarkAdel, the ABC tears strips of all parties -- and don't say they don't because they darn well do!

I watched it and thought it a disgrace that these hypocrites preach one thing and do the exact opposite.

We expect better characters that these have shown to have and if they are getting very good wages to do the RIGHT thing what does this tell us about their moral code -- when they can't even practice what they preach

I watched it and thought it a disgrace that these hypocrites preach one thing and do the exact opposite.

We expect better characters that these have shown to have and if they are getting very good wages to do the RIGHT thing what does this tell us about their moral code -- when they can't even practice what they preach

I absolutely do!