Daily Mail Australia political editor Peter van Onselen provides an insider’s view of the petty and treacherous world of Canberra politics. Daily Mail Australia political editor Peter van Onselen provides an insider’s view of the petty and treacherous world of Canberra politics.
Guardian checks its own staff exodus. Here is my answer
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Last week, my colleague Steve Jackson and I were flattered by the attention our disturbing revelations received in Guardian Australia.
We beat the SMH and Crikey to get the scoop, only to have certain anonymous sources breathlessly report our “inaccurate” reports without offering any real facts to the contrary.
For those who missed Inside Mail, we exposed the disquiet within the ranks of The Guardian’s Canberra bureau arising from the appointment of new political editor and respected press gallery veteran Karen Middleton.
A few months after it was poached from The Saturday Paper, three of the outlet’s political journalists and a photographer took their ball and went home.
Why the mass exodus? First of all, the money. They were not paid enough, and I can confirm that Guardian’s low salaries are common knowledge in Canberra. And second, internal candidates were passed over for promotion.
PVO’s revelations about the unrest in The Guardian sparked a flurry of reports to other journalists about “inaccuracies”. She’s happy to confirm that former live blogger Amy Remeikis (pictured) didn’t leave because she applied for the political editor job that ultimately went to Karen Middleton; He left because they offered him more money elsewhere.
Now, let’s say that one of the staff members who left did not appreciate our white knight role in exposing these events… But I must say that some of the staff who left had such a powerful moan on their way out that they seemed to be begging for attention. .
Former chief political correspondent Paul Karp delivered some scathing criticism in his farewell speech to his colleagues, which just so happened to make it to the media because, you know, journalists are known for being discreet.
And Amy Remeikis basically announced she was leaving because her salary was too low by retweeting a cartoon that said the best financial advice is to “make more money.”
Which, I hear, is exactly what he’s doing with his sinecure at the Australia Institute. Maybe a little add-on to help finance your investment property?
Karp also took to social media and said he had pushed for “positive cultural change” at the Guardian’s Canberra office. Ah, that old chestnut. Complaining about unspecified “cultural” issues is vague enough to imply that your boss is toxic without having to back it up with evidence.
For what it’s worth, we defended Middleton as a seasoned professional at the time and we stand by that. It’s hard not to think that sour grapes played at least some role in the attacks directed at her.
Some of those who left, like Karp, applied for their position but did not get it. Others did not formally apply. However, just because you haven’t applied and received a resume in the mail doesn’t mean you have no interest in the position.
I’d love to be the next CEO of CommBank, for example, (cha-ching), but I won’t waste my time applying when the next position comes up. I’m just not qualified for it!

Daily Mail Australia first reported the exodus of staff from The Guardian’s Canberra bureau following the appointment of respected press gallery veteran Karen Middleton (pictured) as political editor.
So yes, to address some of the private criticism of our previous reporting: Remeikis also did not formally apply for the political editor position. And this was because I knew I had no chance, and that’s fair, I say.
Knowing your own limitations can be a strength. As Kevin Costner once said, “If you don’t understand your limitations, you won’t accomplish much in your life.”
“Change the date,” I say, but not for the reason everyone thinks.
Australia Day weekend is approaching, so expect the annual date change discussion to rear its ugly head as it always does.
Activists condemn the date as “Invasion Day”; His defenders label such insults as “woke.”
Choose your side and prepare to be criticized no matter what you say!
Peter Dutton’s history with Indigenous rights (and activism) is long and windy.
An acolyte of John Howard after entering parliament in 2001, Dutton echoed Howard’s anti-apology stance. The now leader of the opposition has the former prime minister to thank for his early rise to the ministry.
People forget that Dutton served as Peter Costello’s assistant treasurer in the final days of the Howard government. Plus, I always thought I could get more out of it, especially now that the challenges of financial management and cost of living are in the spotlight.
Regardless, Dutton’s slavishness to Howard over the apology became a legacy issue that limited his career for a few years. After Howard lost to Kevin Rudd in 2007, Dutton turned his back on Rudd’s apology to indigenous people in parliament.
Regretting having done so – if only politically – Dutton has tried to explain the “mistake” ever since.
For all the various divisive issues floating around in the Indigenous rights space – from a treaty to Australia Day criticism to a voice to Parliament – a national apology for past wrongs is no longer one of them.
But when Albo embarked on his ill-fated La Voz referendum, the situation changed slightly. Mainly because of how poorly the Prime Minister handled it, not to mention the over-the-top efforts some activists engaged in to try to force Australians to vote for what was proposed.
It didn’t work. Goodwill was replaced by widespread irritation at activists who went too far.

Peter Dutton (pictured), turning his back on Rudd’s apology to indigenous people in parliament, was once a drag on his neck. But after the failure of the Voice referendum, his move doesn’t seem so bad politically.
The political value of standing your ground against such activism has increased, and Dutton is taking advantage of that now.
During the week, he scored points when he exploded at a journalist’s suggestion that he should attend a National Australia Day event in Canberra next weekend – which, let’s face it, is more about criticizing the arrival of the First Fleet than to celebrate it.
That aside, we probably shouldn’t celebrate Australia Day and the arrival of the First Fleet as the beginning of the nation Australia became on January 26th anyway.
Not because activists tell us not to, but because that’s not when it came!
The First Fleet landed at Botany Bay on 18 January, not 26 January. He made landfall before deciding to look for a better location to establish the colony, searching for arable land and a reliable supply of fresh water.
Arthur Phillip sailed into Sydney Harbor and dropped anchor at Camp Cove in Watsons Bay. That didn’t happen on January 26 either. It happened on the 21st. Historians believe he spent the night there.
It was not until 26 January that the fleet finally sailed into the harbor and landed at Sydney Cove at Port Jackson, now Circular Quay.
It was then that Phillip planted the Union Jack and claimed the land for the mother country. An important (more or less) moment in British history, without a doubt, but the date that matters for the founding of our country is the 18th.
The date for celebrating Australia Day will one day change, I have no doubt. It may take a while to happen, but it should happen eventually. However, it will not move to the 18th. Chances are, if we ever become a republic, THAT date will prevail.
And finally…guess who, don’t sue
Which high-profile political couple is bracing for impact, ready to present a united front to save their career if one of the women they had an affair with decides to go public?
It may never happen, of course. And what people do in their private lives, to some extent, is their business. Although politicians stand out (including this one) by bringing out their families from time to time to get positive headlines…
Is the private life of politicians a public matter? The answer is probably yes, but most of their private lives are frankly too boring to bother reporting on.
The couple in question has already made peace with their past and apparently he too has mended his ways. Now they are preparing to strike back if, and only if, their past comes back to bite them.
There’s a saying in politics that nothing stays buried forever (well, apart from one notable trip to a massage parlor that somehow hasn’t made the press).
Now it is a delicate game of “wait and see” the match. Will it break before or after the elections? Or maybe never if the media keeps looking the other way?
The subjects of this blind article are not named or represented anywhere else in this article.