I have often said in my threads that assessing politicians and leaders as possible role models, we notice if they walk the walk as well as they talk the talk.

Kevin Rudd can sure talk. The silver tongue can out-smart Howard, but will his actions and the actions of his wife match claims to being such self righteous Christians from a nice white church in Queensland?

The Work Choices campaigns against AWAs have been the main lines used by the ALP. These include the union movements and workers believing in their only hope.

Yet Kevin Rudd's own wife neglected to pay her staff adequate wages in her factory. Not only are they misrepresenting workers, they are not even representing the poor or vulnerable. So whom are they representing? The ALP have been champions in insisting that leaders must say sorry when they make a mistake. Did the Rudd's say sorry to their exploited workers in their own business? No. Did they go through reconciliation and compensate them? No.

The dinner party with Bourke is all but forgotten, and now its all the way with the silver tongue, a spin, and the sheep are herded by the drover's dog.

OK, orchestra, say it: "but we HAVE to get rid of Howard, anything, anyone has to be better than Howard is”.

I can't, however, see any reason why we can't be critical and cautious when hypocracy rears its ugly head.

“There is a quality even meaner than outright ugliness or disorder, and this meaner quality is the dishonest mask of pretended order, achieved by ignoring or suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and to be served.” Jan Jacobs

To be in business you have to match or undercut the conditions of your competitors.

If she was all alone in this situation I would have to agree with you but first, what are the other employment companies paying and which other Members of Parliament have associated businesses and under what conditions do their employees work?

Political and personal smears usually start much closer to an election campaign but the Polls have forced the Libs to start a bit earlier than usual.

No doubt there will be more to come - from both sides.

saintfletcher - you don't mention the fact that the employees were reimbursed. That's not the same as compensation, I know, but the fact that there were reimbursed well before this furore hit the headlines, I think, counts for quite a lot.

I didn't know that they were reimbursed. That is something. But did they say "sorry"? The symbolic gesture would affirm something to the labor movement.

Most of Therese's income came from the Federal Govt for placing the short/long termed umeployed in a job.Once you get a Govt contract and perform satisfactorily,it becomes quite lucritive.Just placing a short twerm unemployed person is worth a few hundred,however a long term person can be worth thousands.We can have a a merry-go-round of people moving in and out of employment providing a constant stream of income to employment agencies.

Most of Therse's fortune has only happened since the Commonwealth employment sevice was privatised.Try achieving the same success in fast foods,or manufacturing.If you have the right contacts in Govt money can made with ease.Why does the Macquarie Bank employ Bob Carr?It certainly is not for his economic ability.

As with the mentality of most humanity,easy come ,easy go and most of our Govts waste tax dollars with consumate ease.Just look at our various State Govts.They took the GST and wasted it on bureaucrats.According to Peter Costello some $47 Billion or $47,000.00 for every working person.Even if he only half right,it is an absolute scandle.

We’ve got be careful here. OK so we are dealing with a law which is pretty black and white on paper, or is it? Is the foregoing of penalty rates, overtime and allowances for and extra 45 cents an hour actually illegal?

Could it be construed as good shrewd business tactics rather than dodgy practice to strike such a deal? What do other companies do? Is it accepted and general practice to push for or demand this sort of deal?

If it is illegal, do the authorities turn a blind eye, just as with many minor road rules, unless there is a specific complaint? If it is technically illegal but known to be condoned, then it is effectively legal, yes?

Is Ms Rein being unfairly dealt with because she is now the high-profile partner of our next PM? Would she have continued to be able to get away with that sort of deal if she was not in the public spotlight?

Would a company that did strictly adhere to this particular law be put at a disadvantage in an environment where their competitors bent the rules a little?

continued