This from the Federal Public Service Code of Conduct manual:
When deciding whether to accept a gift or benefit, the reputation of the APS is paramount. A useful test is for employees to consider how they might answer questions from a parliamentary committee. If it would be embarrassing, then perhaps the gift or benefit should not be accepted.
And:
A gift or benefit may include:
- offers of cash or shares
- gifts, such as bottles of wine, manufacturer's samples or personal items
- promotional materials, including clothing, books, compact discs or DVDs
- sponsored travel
- benefits under loyalty schemes, such as frequent flyer schemes
- airline competition prizes
- meals or other hospitality
- accommodation and hire car discounts
- entertainment, such as meals, seats at sporting or theatre events or golf days
- discounts on commercial items
- free or discounted places on training and development courses (other than contra-deals associated with the presentation of papers).
Note the last line above.
And:
Employees should be aware of agency-specific policies about accepting gifts and benefits; such policies should apply to members of an employee's family, where acceptance may impact on the employee's official duties.
I think that this makes it pretty clear that the acceptance of a $60,000 scholarship by the PMs family that falls in the category of "free or discounted training and development courses" should not have been accepted. And at the very least, should have been declared.
ogQ!(U~$(KGrHgoOKjYEjlLmS1ctBJ1K-4Uyh!~~_7.JPG?set_id=81 "i-need-a-martini"){kind=avatar}
