Some prime ministers are more practised liars than others. Some can confuse, distract and prevaricate in such a way as to strangle the truth. Morrison, however, is a special case. He does not seem to recognise any obligation to account. He resists any scrutiny and while using words such as “transparency” almost everything he does is opaque.
About 20 years ago, the phrase “plausible deniability” was in vogue, in part because John Howard denied any knowledge of the fact that boat children at sea had not been thrown overboard. A Senate inquiry dragged from a number of officials, including a then deputy secretary of the prime minister’s department, Jane Halton, admissions that they had come to learn that the children overboard story was a furphy.
They said they had told ministerial officers, including senior minders in the Prime Minister’s Office. None of these, apparently, had thought this something important enough to bring to the prime minister’s attention, although he (and his defence minister) were continuing to make statements alleging that refugees had thrown their children overboard so as to force a rescue by the Australian Navy. The prime minister refused to give evidence or to allow any member of his staff, past or present, to appear before the committee.
In 1983, Malcolm Fraser called an election. The Labor Opposition, under Bob Hawke, alleged that Budget projections had slipped badly, and that economy was in far worse shape than Fraser and his Treasurer, John Howard were pretending. They were right. John Stone, then Treasury Secretary, realised that the government would be likely to blame Treasury, rather than decisions of ministers, if the facts emerged before the election, or if, afterwards, the incoming government “discovered” a “black hole”. Adroitly he produced and sprung upon Howard written advice telling him of the budget blow-out, and its likely dimensions.
Howard was in a bind. He had his own suspicions about a blow-out, but as long as he did not officially know, he could blandly deny it. Stone deprived him of an alibi. He did not want to lie. For the last week of the campaign, he had “reduced visibility” lest someone ambush him and ask him directly about the state of the budget.
Someone had told Howard the truth, in a way he could not deny. It was as if he then decided that no one should ever be seen to tell him the truth again. This was why he worked through the PMO, mostly with oral briefings. There are many records of what went into the PMO. But very few which recorded what the staff chose to tell him. He was, of course, very interested in detail, as Morrison is. But his fingerprints could rarely be found. On occasion indeed, some minders took the fall by accepting personal responsibility for matters that had almost certainly engaged the attention of Howard.
Successive governments have tried to follow the Howard system, if in ways adapted to the character of the prime minister, and, in several cases, such as Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott, the personality of their chiefs of staff. But deniability is the key. Some prime ministers are more practised liars than others. Others can confuse, mislead, distract and prevaricate in such a way that the truth is strangled. Morrison, however, is a special case. It’s because he does not seem to recognise any obligation to account. He uses words such as “transparency”, but almost everything he does is opaque. He resists any scrutiny — even more does he resist the imposition of systems by which a review reveals how and why money was spent.
With floods, and bushfires, and vaccines, he blandly announces that he has allocated $X billion to this relief project or that, but no actual fund is created, and it is almost impossible to track the spending that has occurred. With his latest wheeze, the giving out of tens of billion to private enterprise with only minimal accounting requirements, and hardly any protections against fraud, Australia has got fairly close to arbitrary government. Most often we cannot know if there is corruption — even though there are strong grounds to suspect it — because of the looseness of arrangements, the close personal involvement of ministers making decisions on frankly political grounds, and the open derision for financial conventions, many of which are constitutional. The weakest High Court in many decades sits alongside regulators and watchdogs stripped of resources, with leaders sometimes seeming to be chosen for timorousness.
Many politicians dismiss concerns saying, in effect, that the public does not care. I do not believe that, but I do think that we need better methods of informing the population about how they are being ripped off. If there to be a clear sign that citizens care and that they will kick back, it might well be from a general dismay about the ill-treatment and abuse of a young staffer, first at the hands of an individual minder, and, later, by the institution of government itself.
John Waterford AM, better known as Jack Waterford, is an Australian journalist and commentator.
Comments
21 responses to “The Morrison method – if you don’t ask, you can’t tell”
The concept of “coercive control” could be applied more broadly although it is most important in cases of domestic abuse and bullying. I am thinking of policies approved by a government that would face or endure this concept. Robot-debt threats with attendant suicides, coercive control over Newstart recipients, over Indigenous peoples and asylum seekers, cover-ups of sexual abuse and crimes, AFP raids on media outlets, all ordered by whom? Coercive control in policy effects (note) could be claimed by whistleblowers inside and outside Parliament, by public petitions (of an agreed number to avoid frivolous claims) and by the Parliamentary opposition (with agreed number too). An ICAC or a relevant independent body, or even a Senate review could assess and interview the PM. Ultimately responsibility is on the Prime Minister who appoints all Ministers. Thistlethwaite’s proposal that Parliament swears allegiance not to the Queen and descendants but to the people of Australia, would strengthen people’s involvement and surely whistleblowers’ rights.
I note for her efforts, Jane Halton received endless promotions, first as head of the Health department then head of Finance. In Finance she appeared to be instrumental in saving Bronwyn Bishop during the helicopter ride fiasco, and a whole lot more of Bishop’s ‘born to rule’ entitlements, and now Jane gets a chance to sit on many different boards for the various inquires the government initiates. It is similar to how we see ex-Liberals appearing in boards everywhere, some corporate, some government, but wherever the money is or where Liberal political proclivities as a pre-requisite lie.
This sort of thing sends a sober message to the entire public service. Do you want to be climbing a ladder or sliding down a snake?
Max Moore-Wilton who was head of P&C at the time got to be CEO of Sydney airport, a very well remunerated position.
Subsequent Senate inquiries concerning children overboard faced pages of blacked out content, and George Brandis did his best not to cooperate. Nothing happed to Mr Cropping-Scissors, better known as Peter Reith who “failed to correct the record when advised there was no evidence for the claims”. After leaving politics, having been earlier promoted to Defence minister by Howard, he worked for Tenix a major defence supplier. Eventually he was whisked off to London where he became executive director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development – in this capacity he represented Australia.
There’ s nothing but promotion from the Liberals for any supportive act designed to keep them in power.
From another side I have been watching the Liberals shift to being purely partisan when filling diplomatic positions overseas. Some won’t remember, but once upon a time, these positions where given out in nonpartisan ways, yet during the last 7 + years these positions are only filled by ex-liberals as an even more pernicious virus spreads putting a man or occasionally a woman in every port. Nick Greiner is the latest one sent off to New York in the US as consul-general.
Jane Halton also scored a seat on the board of that benevolent institution, Crown Resorts, along with former senator Coonan.
While conducting the National Review of Hotel Quarantine.
I agree the High Court has declined in standard.
Morrison the type of person called ‘type 4’ in GE – the guy who ‘doesn’t have the values or the numbers’.
Two points:
1 Regarding how we got to this parlous state, I cannot recommend highly enough, nor often enough!, ‘Democracy in Chains’ by Nancy McLean. It’s focused on the USA but the story is the same for here, never more so than under this disgraceful government.
2 It doesn’t matter one jot if the public is interested or not (or if ‘the other side is guilty as well’) when the act or omission is illegal or contrary to established guidelines/policies. In such circumstances there is a requirement and obligation for the law or internal processes to be followed and for proper processes of investigation and where appropriate prosecution or disciplinary action to be pursued. This government (and others) are clearly failing repeatedly in this regard except where it suits their political purpose.
We see today that Linds Reynolds, the Defence Minister and chief Brittany Higgins protagonist has adopted the Howard approach of “reduced visibility” by admitting herself to hospital on the “advice” of her cardiologist She also no doubt received advice from the Prime Minister that he “knows nussink” in true Sergeant Schultz fashion, and wants it to remain so, until his carefully doctored “inquiries” bear palatable fruit.
She changed her story last night over the Brittany Higgins account too, compared to what she said in Parliament by amending two details. Imagine facing Labor to answer for that. Is that not misleading parliament?
Morrison and the Shultzian defence?
https://thebugonlinecomau.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/smoko-as-sgt-schultz-net.jpg?w=1024
Does the PM’s area of knowledge acquisition stop at his office door? Isn’t the cabinet room, or even the party room, of equal standing when it comes to communications? No one is asking.
Sometimes I watch a bit of Morrison’s news briefs on national TV, hoping against hope that I might actually hear something real. And time after time Morrison stands there like a smiling wall, essentially saying there’s nothing to see here, next question?
Albanese adds nothing of value. In a recent P&I article, or perhaps it was in the comments, it was noted that Albanese couldn’t bruise a grape.
It is astonishing how poorly led we are. Unresponsive and uncaring, they prevaricate, they lie, they mumble. The field is open for a genuine leader to step up, from either side of the aisle. Does such a person even exist within our current assembly of mediocrities? I’m not holding my breath.
With the government now not having the numbers in the HoR it might be a good time for Labor to revisit this issue.
https://www.theleader.com.au/story/6980976/david-coleman-mp-may-lose-ministerial-role-in-cabinet-reshuffle/
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/liberal-party-mp-david-coleman-ineligible-to-sit-in-parliament/
Might even show there is some fight in the dog.
The reasons that Labor is perceived to “add nothing of value” is due to the Murdoch Newscorp boycott, the constant gagging in Parliament by the Morrison government, and the continuous lying advertising blitz that represents the greatest achievement of the Morrison government. In other words, under the Morrison government, arguable the worst government Australia has had for the last three decades, Albanese has been put in the naughty corner.
Have a look at Albanese’s October budget speech in reply, his several keynote speeches around the country over the last few months, and the quality of the Opposition like Penny Wong, and Tania Plibersek, Tony Burke and others. When they are heard, like the Tanya Plibersek encounter with the LNP MP Kelly, it became nationwide news, and ultimately Kelly jumped the LNP ship, before he was pushed, to the benefit of all Australians.
It may be perceived that the opposition might be less than effective, but they are being as effective as they can be, given they continually face the full force of the Morrison propaganda machine, that will crucify them with lies and filth and hubris, every chance they get.
So breathe again and look forward to an election in September. People are starting to realise they are being continually conned by Morrison, the failed marketing executive.
Labor could have belled the cat on how the media “bargain” is a veiled media tax with the proceeds going to a select few who required it and with no obligation to account for how the money is spent. Yet Labor kept their silence to appease the bully even though that rarely works.
Richard, I think the Google and Facebook deals achieved nothing more than to provide much needed revenue to keep old outdated media companies afloat, who continue to profit from corrupt information.
In the process, the Morrison government has managed to alienate the two of the biggest information companies in the World, and who, no doubt will exact their revenge in ways we cannot comprehend.
For example, why did Facebook do an about face? Not because of Friedenberg’s self promoting negotiation skills, but because they would have alienated a 13,000,000 Australian audience. Facebook (and Google) will apply a tweak here and there that will subtly alter the information landscape in Australia, and not in a way that will benefit the Morrison government, who have made a powerful enemy with their crassness and blundering efforts to look after their media mates.
Labor did well to distance itself from this mess. However, Labor also needs to really think about how to manage these giant companies, and call them to account, particularly where they stand in terms of profiting from hatred and weakening democracy with corrupt information. This is something at which the Morrison government has dismally failed.
Ken, Do we know the extent of Facebooks’s about-face? I understand they have at least got recognition of the fact that value flows to news sources from Facebook references. That is a concession in the propaganda war.
And if the media “bargain” debate were to swirl around Facebook over time, free of mainstream media participation, would the penny drop in due course that the inability to share links was part of a Big New Tax in which the revenue went without strings to the favoured players in traditional media rather than to the community for (fair but transparent) disbursement through Consolidated Revenue? Perhaps then 13,000,000 Australians (apart from the rusted-ons) would realise the conspiracy and pass judgment. I can but hope.
Being powerless in the House, Labor will be judged on its performance in the Senate. Raising taxes to rasie money to a domineering interest group without conditions sets an appalling precedent
What can I say Richard? Neoliberalism and surveillance capitalism, as defined by Shoshana Zuboff, are inextricably intertwined. On the surface, the deal done by Newscorp and others with Google and Facebook was merely about money, but it was also about eyeballs and the ongoing necessity for the Morrison government to keep their propaganda machine, i.e.Newscorp, et al within reach of those 13,000,000 Australians. The quote below is from Zuboff’s book “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”.
It describes our information universe and how it is suborned to the wishes of others.
“With Google in the lead, surveillance capitalism vastly expanded the market dynamic as it learned to expropriate human experience and translate it into coveted behavioral predictions. Google and this larger surveillance project have been birthed, sheltered, and nurtured to success by the historical conditions of their era—second-modernity needs, the neoliberal inheritance, and the realpolitik of surveillance exceptionalism—as well as by their own purpose-built fortifications designed to protect supply chain operations from scrutiny through political and cultural capture.
Surveillance capitalism’s ability to keep democracy at bay produced these stark facts. Two men at Google who do not enjoy the legitimacy of the vote, democratic oversight, or the demands of shareholder governance exercise control over the organization and presentation of the world’s information. One man at Facebook who does not enjoy the legitimacy of the vote, democratic oversight, or the demands of shareholder governance exercises control over an increasingly universal means of social connection along with the information concealed in its networks.”
Mr Dyer: no doubt you are right about the Murdoch boycott, the gagging and the lies.
Yet when I look at the fields in which i am supposed to know something – transport and Commonwealth-State relations- Labor ‘adding nothing of value’ is a compliment.
I find it hard to contain my disappointment at serial speeches etc. that are about ‘we’ll look after my tribe’ but give no indication of any coherent thought based on the Commonwealth being a national, Federal, Government. Like the budget reply or the one in Brisbane a week or so ago.
Then there is the inexcusably spineless behaviour like waving through of national emergency legislation which may have been motivated by Xmas holidays. The saving grace: the Government made a clandestine promise to someone in the Opposition it would be reviewed – once its law!
Sure, the messiah from the shire is running a con, and its anything but Mr Morrison, or Mr Dutton. Like it was anything but Mr Abbott. or Mr Howard. or Mr Costello. etc. But the con in Morrison’s part is he is actually doing things – like the emergency legislation.
I hope Labor’s performance in Government will be light years better than we are being led to expect.
And, as it probably hasn’t occurred to them, I’ll say it (again): when in office, having n+1 political staffers makes things worse, not better. Particularly when they get nice titles.
Best wishes
Thank you Petal for your insights. I read recently that Morrison had dodged more questions in Parliament than any former Prime Minister, using his usual tricks that are becoming increasingly well known.
The article went on to compare Julia Gillard, whose prime ministerial tenure was the same length as Morrisons. PM Gillard did not once deflect, delegate or refuse to answer questions in parliament. She responded to everything.
I live in hope that we might return to those days, if Labor gets elected. However, as they stand, presently, they have to pick their fights because otherwise the Morrison propaganda machine will launch into full flight as we saw the other day when a figure of $20billion dollars was bandied around by the government even though it was fake.
Mr Dyer:
Ms Gillard – Parliament, public service – good performance. Also generally good, professional and a straight shooter.
But the visible lamentable exception of trying to ‘real Julia’ showboat for the Western Sydney audience via: an unconvincing bit of Conservative style gunboat xenophobia with the member for Lindsay in Darwin, the Rooty Hill sleepovers replete with Ch7 interviews of pokie room inhabitants for Sunrise, and support for that godawful WestConnex Octopus. Impressed? Not west of Gleble Pt Rd we weren’t. Insulted is more like it. Handy for the Libs though – who turned it into: the reffoos are causing Penrith traffic jams. Who was behind this election losing stuff ?- surely not Gillard.
And the worse invisible exception of trying to circumvent Williams (1) and keep some gravy trains going via omnibus legislation purportedly allowing the Commonwealth to spend on anything.
Effectively tossed out in Williams (2) which was subsequently ignored by Government and Opposition smorgasboards of election funding promises. Like we see now. Open contempt by leaders for the highest laws and authorities – guess where that leads.
I don’t mind if Fed Labor picks fights on something within the Fed. field.
I do mind if they ignore the law and target things outside that field – try to outdo e.g. sports (rorts), Dutton’s surveillance cameras, Gladys’ various schemes, motorways et al.
National highways, railways, airports, ports: yes.
Pothole fixing, toilet blocks, surf clubs, gifts for the States: no.
Not merely because the latter means they don’t have a clue what they should be doing. But because someone else will eventually be making up the plot for them.
If nothing else, an environment ripe for corruption and for juniors to flout other laws.
Yes, better than whats in office now. Unacceptable nonetheless.
As ever, happy to be proved wrong.
Regards
to he Mt Druitt/real Julia excurses foisted on her
Ken,
I fully agree with your observations.The Murdoch Media and their apologists have much to answer for in covering up the omissions, cover-ups and misappropriation of tax payers money under the succession of LNP Governments since Howard, although no doubt it goes back to the Fraser years. Rudd and Gillard were relentlessly attacked during the Labor Years, often on flimsy or even malicious grounds, they could do not do right in Murdoch’s eyes .
The current economic mess and scandal are a sign that the Morrison Government has lost the moral right to govern this country .
Thank you Jack for one of the most hard hitting critiques of the Morrison Government I have read. Your analysis should merit front page coverage on all media outlets .