Which pollie is bracing for a scandal after he privately confessed his affairs to his wife? And I respond to the Guardian ‘sources’ briefing against me… PETER VAN ONSELEN

Daily Mail Australia’s political editor Peter van Onselen brings an insider’s view into the petty, backstabbing world of Canberra politics. 

Guardian fact-checks its own staff exodus. Here’s my response

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

In the past week, my colleague Steve Jackson and I have been flattered by the attention our revelations of disquiet at the Guardian Australia have received.

We beat the SMH and Crikey to get the scoop, only for certain unnamed sources to breathlessly brief against our ‘inaccurate’ reporting without offering any real facts to the contrary.

For those who missed Inside Mail, we exposed the disquiet among the ranks of the Guardian’s Canberra bureau stemming from the appointment of new political editor and respected press gallery veteran Karen Middleton.

Within a few months of her being poached from The Saturday Paper, three of the outlet’s political journos and a photographer picked up their ball and went home.

Why the mass exodus? Firstly, money. They weren’t getting paid enough – and I can confirm Guardian’s low salaries are common knowledge in Canberra. And secondly, internal candidates were passed over for promotion.

PVO’s revelations about turmoil at the Guardian prompted a flurry of briefing to other reporters about ‘inaccuracies’. He is happy to confirm former live blogger Amy Remeikis (pictured) did not leave because she applied for the political editor job that eventually went to Karen Middleton; she left because she got offered more money elsewhere

Now, let’s just say one of the departing staff members did not appreciate our white-knight role in exposing these goings-on… But I must say, some of those leaving did have such an almighty whinge on their way out that they seemed to be begging for attention.

Erstwhile chief political correspondent Paul Karp delivered some pointed barbs in his farewell speech to colleagues, which just happened to make its way into the media because, you know, journos are known for being discreet.

And Amy Remeikis basically announced she was leaving because her salary was too low by retweeting a cartoon saying the best financial advice is to ‘make more money’.

Which, I hear, is exactly what she is doing with her sinecure at The Australia Institute. A small top up to help fund her investment property perhaps?

Karp took to social media too, saying he had pushed for ‘positive cultural change’ in the Guardian’s Canberra bureau. Ah, that old chestnut. Complaining about unspecified ‘cultural’ issues is just vague enough to imply your boss is toxic without having to back it up with proof.

For what it’s worth, we defended Middleton as a seasoned pro at the time and stand by that. It’s hard not to think sour grapes played at least some role in attacks directed at her.

Some of those departing, such as Karp, applied for her job but missed out. Others didn’t formally apply. However, just because you haven’t popped an application and resumé in the mail doesn’t mean you have zero interest in the role.

I would love to be the next CommBank CEO, for example, (cha-ching) but won’t waste my time applying when the gig next comes up. I’m just not qualified for it!

Daily Mail Australia was first to report on the staff exodus at the Guardian's Canberra bureau that followed the appointment of respected press gallery veteran Karen Middleton (pictured) as political editor

Daily Mail Australia was first to report on the staff exodus at the Guardian’s Canberra bureau that followed the appointment of respected press gallery veteran Karen Middleton (pictured) as political editor

So yes, to address some of the private criticism of our earlier reporting: Remeikis did not formally apply for the political editor role either. And this was because she knew she didn’t have a chance, and fair enough, I say.

Knowing one’s limitations can be a strength. As Kevin Costner once said: ‘If you don’t understand your limitations, you won’t achieve much in your life.’

‘Change the date’, I say – but not for the reason everyone thinks

Australia Day weekend is coming up, so expect the annual argument about changing the date to rear its ugly head like it always does.

Activists condemn the date as ‘Invasion Day’; defenders of it label such insults ‘woke’.

Pick your side and prepare to be criticised no matter what you say!

Peter Dutton’s history with Indigenous rights – and activism – is a long and windy one.

As a John Howard acolyte after entering parliament in 2001, Dutton echoed Howard’s anti-apology stance. The now Opposition leader has the former PM to thank for his early promotion into the ministry.

People forget Dutton served as Peter Costello’s assistant treasurer in the dying days of the Howard government. As an aside, I’ve always thought he could make more of that, especially now that economic management and cost of living challenges are front and centre.

Anyway, Dutton’s thrall to Howard on the apology became a career-limiting legacy issue for a few years. After Howard lost to Kevin Rudd in 2007, Dutton turned his back on Rudd’s apology to Indigenous peoples in parliament.

Regretting having done so – if only politically – Dutton has tried to explain away the ‘mistake’ ever since.

For all the various divisive issues floating around 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 Voice referendum, the worm turned ever so slightly. Mostly because of how badly it was handled by the PM, not to mention the over-the-top efforts some activists partook in to try to arm-twist Australians into voting for what was proposed.

It didn’t work. Goodwill was replaced by mainstream irritation at activists going too far.

Peter Dutton (pictured) turning his back on Rudd's apology to Indigenous peoples in parliament was once an albatross around his neck. But after the failure of the Voice referendum, his move doesn't seem that bad politically

Peter Dutton (pictured) turning his back on Rudd’s apology to Indigenous peoples in parliament was once an albatross around his neck. But after the failure of the Voice referendum, his move doesn’t seem that bad politically

The political value in standing one’s ground against such activism has grown, and Dutton is riffing off that now.

During the week, he scored points when he blew up at a journalist’s suggestion he should attend a National Australia Day event in Canberra next weekend, which, let’s face it, is more about criticising the First Fleet’s arrival than celebrating it.

As another 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 26 anyway.

Not because the activists tell us not to – but because that’s not when it arrived!

The First Fleet landed in Botany Bay on January 18, not January 26. It made landfall before deciding to look for a better location to set up the colony, in the search for farmable land and a reliable supply of fresh water.

Arthur Phillip sailed into Sydney Harbour and laid anchor at Camp Cove in Watsons Bay. That didn’t happen on January 26 either. It occurred on the 21st. Historians believe he stayed there overnight.

It wasn’t until January 26 that the fleet finally sailed up the harbour, landing at Sydney Cove in Port Jackson, now Circular Quay.

That is when Phillip planted the Union Jack and claimed the land for the mother country. An important(ish) moment in British history, to be sure, but the date that matters to the foundation of our country is the 18th.

The date to celebrate Australia Day will one day be changed, I have no doubt. It might just take a while to happen, but it eventually should. It won’t shift to the 18th however. More likely if we ever do become a republic, THAT date will takeover. 

And finally… guess who, don’t sue 

Which high-profile political couple is bracing for impact, ready to present a united front to save his career if one of the women he had an affair with decides to go public?

It may never happen, of course. And what people do in their private lives, to a certain extent, is their business. Although politicians do put themselves out there (including this one) by wheeling out their family from time to time for positive headlines…

Are politicians private lives public business? The answer is probably yes, but most of their private lives are frankly too boring to bother reporting on.

The couple in question have already made their peace with his past, and apparently he’s mended his ways too. Now they are readying themselves to push back if – and only if – his past comes back to bite him.

There’s a saying in politics that nothing stays buried forever (well, apart from one noteworthy trip to a massage parlour that has, somehow, stayed out of the press).

Now it’s a delicate game of ‘wait and see’ for the party. Will it break before the election or after? Or perhaps never if the media continues to look the other way?

The subjects of this blind item are not named or pictured elsewhere in this article. 

***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk