Senator Andrew Bartlett
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
 
The front page of the weekend's Sunday Telegraph had a photograph of NSW Judge Jeff Shaw outside his home and was headlined "Judge Shaw on $1200 a day sick leave"

The story opened with the following few sentences:
"NSW Supreme Court judge Jeff Shaw earns $1200 a day while he seeks treatment for a drinking problem that had become obvious to his colleagues years ago. The Sunday Telegraph can reveal that Justice Shaw continues to earn his $6000 weekly salary while on sick leave, which he began on Monday."

No doubt my irritation is amplified by my own experience, but this sort of media really infuriates me. The implication in the article is that alcohol related illnesses aren't really a sickness at all and therefore don't deserve sick leave. And by using the weasel-word "reveal", the paper gets to imply there is something secret and sordid that they've managed to uncover (without quite saying it of course). At the same time, the patronising opprobrium is laid on as thick as possible. Every report of a drink the guy was ever seen having carries the tinge of a binge.

Any person who does have a drinking problem and was considering admitting it and doing something about it will read media coverage like this and decide there is no way they are going to open themselves up to this sort of public criticism. The risk of being permanently stuck with all the negative stereotypes and ignorant labels that go along with admitting a drinking problem is not something many people are willing to take unless the health consequences become so serious or immediate they have little choice.

I only use this particular story by way of example - this latest feeding frenzy that Jeff Shaw has got caught up in is not much different from all the other lazy media attacks, apart from the use on this occasion of the cheap and easy device of 'revealing' that he gets paid sick leave (a device which is regularly used whenever one of these media pack assaults are underway.)

Are they really suggesting that someone should be unpaid while they are on sick leave? I know some workers - especially casuals and self-employed people - are in this situation, but that just reinforces the fact that people are much less likely to seek treatment for medical problems - alcohol related or otherwise - if they do not receive sick leave.

If people think Judges are paid too much then argue about that, but to suggest because they receive a high income they should not have sick leave - or sick leave is somehow inappropriate because the illness is alcohol related - is pathetic. It is a typical piece of two-bob each way hypocrisy.

As a footnote, I don't think anyone should be paid $6000 per week, but I refrain from criticising Judges regarding this as I am reliably informed that most of them can earn more money if they stay in private practice - and having good Judges is surely vital.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, November 09, 2004
|


<< Home