How Prime Minister Scott Morrison ‘feels’ the pain of others. For him, almost everything is a public relations problem.
The fate of the Morrison government is unlikely to turn on its “management” of the alleged sexual assault in the office of Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, deplorable as that appears to have been. Forensic journalists may yet uncover evidence of a ministerial or prime ministerial error or lie as to the timetable of official knowledge of the affair. That may warrant a scalp or two. Likewise, with evidence of cover-up by staffers or officials able to be, but not unequivocally, interpreted as threats. Yet the whole affair creates a nasty smell that further undermines confidence in the prime minister and a number of his ministers.
It’s not a sex scandal — a case of voluntary but illicit sex on Capital Hill. It’s an alleged rape case – an alleged crime, which is quite different. It is of a one with the seeming incapacity of Morrison to appreciate how badly he was misreading the mood about his absence at the height of the bushfires 13 months ago, or his decision to delay a lockdown that he could go to a football match. Or his indifference to the situation of refugees. With 100 other examples of an apparent inability to appreciate or to share the emotions, perceptions and feelings of others, it shows itself mostly as a lack of empathy or understanding. It is usually followed, once he understands that he has misinterpreted the mood, by some corny distraction designed to make himself seem human again.
This week, for example, he humbly explained a change of approach as having followed a conversation with his wife, who had invited him to contemplate the horror of a similar sexual assault on one of his own two daughters. After doing so, he suddenly “got it”. He was appropriately grateful to his wife for keeping him grounded and was sorry if some of his earlier remarks had seemed insensitive, had not shown the woman the compassion she deserved.
It was never quite clear where Morrison’s state of understanding had been prior to his wife’s breaking his fugue. Would he have appreciated the point, for example, had he had sons? Or no children at all? Must one have daughters to appreciate, at a sympathetic and emotional level, the horrors of sexual assault? Were the early cack-handed interventions of other ministers, or senior staffers, the result of the same fugue, the same want of appreciation of what had happened to the woman, the same incapacity to feel for her pain and frustration, and feeling that she had not received the help she needed?
Well, not exactly. Most of those involved, including Morrison, were not seeing the “problem” in “that space”. If they were thinking of the woman at all, it was of a former staffer who might go rogue on them and cause political embarrassment. They were wondering if she could be shut up. Or should be. Or appeased. If the “problem” could be “contained”. Or, if necessary, whether her account could be discredited, whether by direct assault or by informal briefing of an unusually pliant press gallery suggesting some secondary motive, perhaps, some obsession or irrationality that had led the government, reluctantly, to decide to dispense with her.
When the victim is seen only as a source of embarrassment, not as a person
It’s a tactic often employed whenever the government has a potential public relations problem. For Morrison, almost everything is a public relations problem. No one, usually, is more adept than the prime minister in playing a straight bat to all inquiries, to misleading, prevaricating, or smart-arsed comments (as with questions about Craig Kelly), or the unilateral declaration that some topic is out of bounds, whether because of its belonging to some Canberra bubble, zone of prime ministerial privacy, or otherwise not of public interest.
If some limited disclosure is necessary, problems can still be delayed, or understanding of them distorted, by consigning them to some far-off inquiry. That helps shut down the indignation and clamour, but usually only postpones it. These days, however, reports are often withheld if they say anything inconvenient. The prime minister’s office narrowly frames terms of reference; those conducting inquiries gather minimal facts.
Governments have minor crises to hose down every week. The pandemic and Morrison’s self-serving personality helps him hold the hose with particular zeal. Most issues turn on what he has or has not done. Morrison often dismisses criticism saying he won’t look back because he has been wholly preoccupied with fighting the pandemic or delivering economic salvation.
He belittles issues as being of the past. He can use his parliamentary numbers — close as they are — to shut down debate. His Speaker, Tony Smith, maintains a veneer of independence, but looks out for the government’s interests in vulnerable areas. Morrison can have the most limited of press conferences, choosing who will be allowed to ask questions, and, as often as not, peremptorily ruling out lines of questioning, or follow-up questions.
I have watched 12 prime ministers close up, and several more at a distance, and all have had techniques, including refusing to hold press conferences, to avoid being held to account. But I have never seen, over 50 years, a more slippery customer than Morrison, a person more impossible to pin down, chronically secretive, truculent, and given to marketing verbiage in which it is almost impossible to separate the new from the old, the fact from the hope, or the dream from the substance.
I have never seen, over 50 years, a more slippery customer than Morrison
Samantha Maiden, from News.com, deserves considerable credit for her work in breaking the story last weekend. It is obvious that once she began asking questions that minders, and officials, were seeking to deflect her inquiries, to minimise their roles, or to deny any want of understanding or support. What is strange is how long it took the government — or its central nervous system – to realise they had a major problem on their hands, not to be handled with the usual derision and contempt. The story had a hold on the imagination, and a call to arms. It was a human story, of human dimension.
It fitted into modern narratives of sexual assault and abuse of power. Inequality of position, fear that employers would retaliate if one made trouble and the fear that calling out an assault might compound the humiliation and add to the psychic as well as the physical wounds.
Perhaps we can take ministers (below the prime minister) at their word that they did not appreciate that sexual assault had been involved. That ignorance, if it was ignorance, might have been added to by the woman’s initial decision not to involve the police. But she did not know that police were already involved. Entry into the minister’s office had involved a breach of security, particularly on the part of the alleged rapist. This was why he was summarily (and conveniently) dismissed a few days later.
Her intoxicated condition had been noticed when the pair arrived. This worried parliamentary security officers, who entered the rooms on several occasions after the man had left and while the woman was sleeping on a sofa in a state of disarray. They formed the view that a sexual assault had occurred — indeed that the room was a “crime scene” that should have been preserved for forensic examination. Some immediately thought the actions of others –minders and officers of the parliamentary services department — were focused on cover-up.
Whether or not these perceptions were right (a subsequent inquiry by former Inspector General of Security Vivienne Thom could not sustain them) their disquiet had a host of repercussions, most unknown to the victim. The presiding officers became aware, and soon, via confidential submissions, so did members of a parliamentary committee. ACT AFP detectives came to the scene, even if reluctant to move to a full investigation until there was a complaint. But they secured some evidence, including closed-circuit camera footage of the entry by the man and the woman into the suite, and the man’s departure.
All of this created a paper trail. But there are also emails between minders, seemingly focused on whether she would keep her mouth shut. It may well be that the prime minister was not informed — though given Morrison’s micro-managing ways, particularly in the shadow of an impending election, it might seem amazing that he would not be.
But, despite the denials, a number of people in his office were aware of the “potential problem”. Some because they had moved from the defence minister’s private office to the prime minister’s. Some “management” of the risk seems to have occurred, for example in organising a job for the woman in Senator Michaelia Cash’s office. When it became known that the ABC Four Corners program was snooping around sexual indiscretion at the higher levels of government, a check was made to be sure she was not telling tales.
The minders in on the secret were, of course, seeking to protect the government, and, in particular the prime minister. Where they failed Morrison, or Morrison failed himself, was in not realising what dynamite the story would be if the victim publicly complained.
Was it always a disaster-in-waiting? Not necessarily – had there been a focus on her welfare afterwards. That lack of practical concern, and the incompetence, negligence and mismanagement of the pretend concern was bad and, less importantly, makes the government “look” bad. Just as badly it was all of a one with a prevailing culture — one Morrison has condoned — of bullying dominant males.
It was always open to senior people in the office to properly investigate, including progressing it even if the victim did not want to make a formal complaint. An unwillingness to proceed to complaint is not uncommon — who would reproach victims given poor conviction rates, the ordeal of trial, and, sometimes, the professionalism, or want of it, of police.
It appears that offers of help were pro-forma. Neither minister had an office that fostered a sense of inclusiveness and mutual assistance. The occasional inquiries seem to have been more focused on whether she was going to be a problem rather than concern for her welfare.
If she felt abandoned, and likely to put her job at risk unless she shut up, she was probably sensibly realistic. From top to bottom, this was not a nurturing environment, and young women, as the record shows, seem to be out of the loop for handsome post-employment contracts, sinecures, boards, appointments and graft. That’s for the boys — what modern Morrison government is mostly about.
John Waterford AM, better known as Jack Waterford, is an Australian journalist and commentator.
Comments
61 responses to “I have never seen, over 50 years, a more slippery customer than Morrison”
Here is something special for George Wendell & Jack Waterford. While I usually disagree with much of what Jack writes, and almost all of what George writes, on this issue, they are spot on. While the broader issue of the rights of women is for another post (or three or more), this is a most distressing time for Ms Higgins, and she deserves ALL the support we all can muster to right a ghastly wrong – irrespective of the political consequences for all sides of politics. To the sisterhood, forget party politics and unite as one against this monstrous abuse of one of our sisters.
Thank you MaryJoy333
Even though we share vastly different views on other subjects for which I am not at all kind to you on, I much prefer when our views coincide.
Under the various state and territory crimes’ acts knowledge of a possible crime must be reported else one becomes an accessory after the fact. Is that also the case for Commonwealth Parliamentarians and those in their employ or can one commit the most heinous of crimes or be aware of said crime within the jurisdiction of the Parliament without fear of criminal prosecution? Who draws the line and when, or does a line even exist in relation to crime within the relevant statutory jurisdiction of the Parliament? Indeed is the jurisdiction of the Parliament subject to criminal statute? Is this knowledge that was held by the perpetrator and hence the luring into parliament where the much discussed incident occurred?
In fact it would be fair to say that Morrison’s lack of empathy bespeaks of a sociopathic nature or at least a severe case of narcissism. And people were complaining about Trump when we have our own ‘totally unfit to be a leader’ sitting there in the driver’s seat reminding us daily that we were and still are blind to our own failings. With him in charge (and his minions next to him) we are surely charging to the position of ‘the white trash of Asia’. No wonder those from a Confucian background north of us don’t respect us. The concept of the ‘superior man’ or the ‘sage’ is one that doesn’t see light here at all.
I watched his response to when this all first broke live on ABC. He tried to squeeze out some crocodile tears and when they didn’t come he put a warble in his voice but his smirk was so obvious behind that warble it just got too sinister for me and I had to change channels. By then I had already heard him dissemble and deflect responsibility with the royal “we” and how every organisation will have to learn to do better. I’m not sorry I missed the victim-blaming portion of his response, I can imagine how hurtful it was just thinking about his smirk.
Some food for thought https://www.verywellmind.com/understanding-the-narcissistic-sociopath-4587611
Yes, I’m very much focused on people and why they do what they do!
An excellent article Heather.
My partner and I had an experience with such a person about 9 years ago. Never to be forgotten.
That person ruled through fear, threat, and pushing her way. At the same time she demonstrated limited normal social skills in working with people. Manipulation only, is what comes to mind.
She (the sociopath) was the new boss at the workplace. The difficulty with sociopaths is that they will be more than friendly with people they know they can use to carry out their personal agendas; consequently they receive promotions, while the others that receive the anti-antisocial and manipulative side know full well what they have come up against. That sets up a situation which is something like social gaslighting, where a few become rewarded followers that continue to think the person is normal, even very nice, while others on the sociopath’s receiving end (usually far more people) have difficulty in being believed. It certainly messes with their minds. It is only until the sociopath is caught out that the truth comes out, and even then the ones that supported the sociopath still tend to think they were a good person.
I would say in today’s world there are genuine sociopaths, but also there is a cultivation of the sociopathic character within politics and the industrial workplace world.
Considering the Liberals, I think they have been cutting their teeth on doing more an more callous deeds of the sociopathic type for years. It’s like the person that can go even lower on the empathy and ethics scale is rewarded for having the best behaviour.
Indeed, and given the ‘ workplace environment’ such as it is, along with WorkChoices 2, and insecure work for many, many others, it actually enables sociopathic behaviour to the hilt.
As you were saying before, inequality and entitlement are the very ground for these characteristics to flower and become the fertile grounds for abuse.
Well I think it is an important standpoint that is true in all situations.
Equality, everyone equal in rights, I mean what are we avoiding?
But what a reward…
Even animals get upset when they know that one is getting a sweeter bunch of grapes and the other is getting pumpkin.
We are all striving for equality, and the best thing we could do is to accept it. Then there might be more balance in how we live our lives.
“Equality, everyone equal in rights, I mean what are we avoiding?”
Maybe I will have a crack at that, with this viewpoint, from a bigger picture and I am quoting a very good friend of mine here who’s work covers journalism, politics, science, environment, law and publishing.
“On the collective level, we can look around at the clashes in society: vaccine cultists versus anti-vaxxers; the government versus the people; the news media versus the people; the tech giants taking over reality, attempting to consume all that was left after their 20-year nonstop gluttonous feast.”
We can also see that there is a very public stoush over two definitions of ‘science’. “The current definition is “whatever someone I think is a scientist says,” or “whatever a corporation or government claims is scientific.” The more accurate term for this is political science, or science for profit and warfare. It may rely on laboratories, but it is arbitrary.”
Another definition is, “That which has been deduced and confirmed through the scientific method, of well-designed and repeated experimentation.” That is the traditional one, hooked to the scientific method.”
We are dealing with planetary aspects, energies and hidden agendas that have not been experienced since 1405 at the dawn of the Renaissance and we are also currently in the Age of Aquarius – which is about social patterns.
If you wish, you can read more here https://planetwaves.net/the-conspiracy-of-wholeness-and-healing/ and you will also notice a tab with the heading COVID-19 News which is a journal that has been running since the beginning, with very salient interviews from Nobel Peace prize winners. Very instructive reading that is not available via MSM anywhere globally. You can jump in and have a sniff around.
This is going to be my usual stuff about not wasting too much time blaming individuals, but to blame the culture and change it. The worst thing about the whole business is that the Parliamentary culture covers up the crime, making it more likely to be committed in the future. Offenders are prepared to take the risk because if they are unlucky they will probably be quietly moved on to some other workplace where they can go on to devastate someone else’s life. Like a decadent Church, the Institution has selected people whose careers mean vastly more to them than the suffering of those around them.
Parliament was designed to be able to stop its members behaving like scoundrels, by instilling fear in them that they will be voted out if they do. The design was a dumb one because scoundrels easily throw the blame on other people (on the other side of the House, over the border, or across the sea) when things go badly. And sure enough, parliamentarians and congressmen do little else. It’s how they stay in power, and even save their own skins from raging lynch-mobs. The Chinese and Russians are now the scapegoats over the sea for the collapse of electoral democracy in the West, when the reason for the collapse was bad design, not only of government, but of a whole culture.
It is firstly a political culture, where appearances, power, and image dominate. Parliament is merely the stage, and all is secondary to the actors’ performances there. As any control or sanction is at the whim of the political party in power, the political lens is what they see it through.
These staffers are only technically employees of the Parliamentary institution, they are in practice employees of a Member or Minister. However, as I understand they are under contract to (or temporary employees of) the Parliamentary institution, perhaps an employment lawsuit might shake things up?
No. The environment selects. It’s the meaning of life, as discovered by Charles Darwin. The institution and its rules select the people and their behaviour. They need to change so that they select better people and better behaviour. It’s a constitutional problem so deeply entrenched that Australia is likely to become a failed state along the lines of the constitutionally similar US.
The main point is Jack is making informed criticism, one of the few men. Women are sick of having the cleaning thrown at them, when this is men’s business. Morrison is an admitted women hater (his pre-election comment) and yet why are men so loath to push him out? He and the LNP are your problem. Of course he’s covered up, and blamed other women! The most decent men (we know lots) still stay silent. Why is this?
The men who have power and influence to speak up and be heard are those who have long since joined the Team and knows you’d be rewarded if you (kow)tow the ‘Deep State’s line and lose your job and be attacked viciously in the mainstream media if you don’t. Just watch the man/men who does speak up (and is heard) in this most recent manifestation of the long-running undermining of Australian democracy and see what happens.
As a feminist, Jocelyn, you may also want to take note of how many women do end up speaking up for the man/men who does speak up – I would warrant the support from women will be rather thin, which is an understanable reflection of the present conflict with the patriarchy, but should elicit some empathy for the men in positions of power and influence who don’t speak up (but not excuse their cowardice of course).
“The most decent men (we know lots) still stay silent. Why is this?”
The Domino Effect?
I am not apologizing for the men who stay silent, but in some cases would it also be like Brittany in that they fear losing their jobs, not being taken seriously, or suffer other forms of vengeance since the culture of cover-up is so strong and denouncing the government’s failures is met with vicious attacks from the same government?
Even with matters that have nothing to do with the current rape allegations, public service whistle blowers are no longer in a safe place, given what we see in terms of the litigation that follows and destruction of peoples lives. This has been going on since Howard’s time in office when a whistle blower exposed how our terrorist effort was restricted to the airport arrivals and departures, while behind the scenes in the luggage areas gross violation of security was possible.
It is well known in Canberra that the public service culture is now one where if you tow the Liberal Party’s line your future is secure, while if you don’t then watch out. If you are a whistle blower it is good bye Charley, and expect to have your life destroyed.
Frank but fearful advice.
Thank you Richard
To add to many constructive arguments: an allegation I heard was Gorbachev taking the measure of Thatcher by teasing her that she wanted a nuclear war. Bullies seem to emerge at all ages and walks of life; the LNP collectively represents that from a long background of male aggrandisement and obviously now panic. I think Morrison lied to Parliament, otherwise why send his PMO attack dogs after Ms Higgins’s partner? Revenge is hardly attractive either (in me) but how nice if Labor men actually took Morrison down over this very issue. They could take a leaf from Ken Hayne’s recent comments about High Court bullies (let alone the bravery in the Banking RC of the barristers and Hayne). I’m not waiting though.
I sincerely hope Labor men take the prime minister down on this issue and in my view men showing solidarity with women on this is exactly what is required.
The bullying is obvious here, yet it is rarely addressed as such. In this case it is men who anachronistically still believe they should hold power over women, and also use their increased power as members of parliament to enforce it.
While bullying is discussed within children and adolescent’s school programs and teachers are trained to expose it so it can be dealt with, the leaders of this nation, and those like Trump was in the US are often the worst examples you can imagine when it comes to setting the example. At least Labor here, and Biden in the US show a healthy respect for gender balance and a general respect for women as capable and intelligent beings.
Thanks for your comment Jocelyn.
Whilst I more than understand the perspective of your post, I am sorry to say that I do not agree with it, for the following reasons.
Maybe this terminology is something that you may, or may not recognise, however I’ll give it a go.
Interdependence – Things derive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are nothing in themselves.
Most, if not all of us suffer from this illusion that we exist by ourselves and stand alone in the world? Many self-made women and men fall prey to this illusion that everything they do they do themselves and that the path to their success was made only by them.
That is a costly delusion. In order to maintain it, we have to forget an entire and ongoing chain of events, the women who gave birth to us, and the ones who raised us – the people who taught us – by their example and by the opposite of their example. We have to forget the pains caused by such narrow myopic perspectives. We have to bury the memories of that pain that has caused the intolerable deaths of people, animals and their environments that shared their essence with us when we needed it most.
What you are saying is that we must not stand up for what’s right, and allow an unruly mob tear down regulations, laws, the whole of society and the common good to protect their own kind?
Really, are you suggesting that bullying and coercive control are acceptable at any cost for the sake of peace?
On that assumption alone, the personal is really political, wouldn’t you agree?
“What you are saying is that we must not stand up for what’s right, and allow an unruly mob tear down regulations, laws, the whole of society and the common good to protect their own kind?”
I suggest nothing of the sort Heather, and I will not accept that charge. I am simply pointing out how much duress a whistle blower can face under this current government, whether male or female. I even start my comment by saying that “I am not apologizing for the men who stay silent”. Up to you to believe me or not. Brittany herself has faced similar resistance from the government in more than one way, and we still don’t have the full story of how she was deterred by people around her concerning their reactions. In her earlier accounts she also infers that the AFP were facing some kind of resistance from the government to investigate as well.
“Really, are you suggesting that bullying and coercive control are acceptable at any cost for the sake of peace?”
No I am not, and I cannot even understand where you glean that from in my comments on this particular issue. I only refer to yet another culture that permeates Australian parliament and particularly within the Liberals where it aligns with a kind of fascist repression directed at anyone that might challenge their authority or their expose their lies and secretive behaviour. Look what is happening to Witness K and Bernard Collaery over Timor L’est to name one example. Their lives are ruined.
I spend most of my time on this site commenting about resisting many of the government’s views – with many things that this government does. I have never ever said that the answer is to lie down a give up. You misjudge me on that. If I thought lying down and giving up was the best action, then why would I even appear on this site? Much easier to watch Netflix, but that is not me.
In fairness I think you have to admit that the path to creating a more egalitarian world at every level including for women, is a long history of struggle, and many have paid for it with torture, death, vilification and isolation. Within that, human beings have either stood up against it or not found the courage to do it, irrespective of gender. The written accounts of Emmeline Pankhurst for example, are demonstrative of that. Some women were prepared to risk far more than others. Repeated force feeding in gaol for example, even death, while others took a more supportive less courageous role. Some women opposed everything Pankhurst stood for as well. In my view, Pankhurst’s efforts over such a long period of time were greater than Gandhi’s efforts in India, and I only acquired that view from reading her work. The irony is that she also won the vote for younger men as well, but was never thanked for it.
Personally, I encourage standing up for all issues concerning inequality, and I have even written in my first comment above that it is more than about resisting, but requiring a public debate about the socialisation of the Australian archetypal male, particularly in reference to violence, something that drives domestic violence perpetrated against women, and overriding women’s rights to sovereignty over their own bodies. While many men do respect women in Australia as equals, there is still another anachronistic group who frequently do not.
I don’t quite understand what you mean in your last sentence, but as far as the government is concerned, the preservation of the political party and their culture overrides anything personal.
Indeed, and it will take every last one of us with a conscience, courage and integrity to stand up against the very LNP patriarchal Parliamentary nature that it is. That very same culture permeates Law, Policing, Defence, Prison services and even the medical fraternity.
As for my last comment, the personal is political, it is very personal when it comes to many in the Parliament and elsewhere allowing the biggest institutions of all time to get away with criminal behaviour – Roman Catholic Church’s refusal to allow priests to marry, Church of England’s refusal of ordained women as priests, very slow progress, Religious Institutions seeking exemptions to override Equal Opportunity due to diametrical belief’s, the ongoing battle for women to attain abortion rights – especially in the case of rape or incest – a subject matter that is not discussed at all – where the USA are still seeking to overturn Roe Vs Wade and last but not least, women still do not have equal rights when it comes to wage remuneration
and doing the same job as a male, they earn at least 30% less depending on the job, or industry.
Yes, Emeline Pankhurst was indeed an outstanding role model, however, many who have benefitted have forgotten what price was paid in the first instance, nor to mention the astonishing opposition from the Tory Government of the day.
It comes down to a very broad change that needs to begin in the nursery not just by both parents, but by the entire community which has been accepted and passed for eons, and we still have two of those ex PM’s railing against the very necessary changes that are needed with both Howard and Abbott driving that agenda.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/24/john-howard-calls-for-religious-schools-to-have-anti-discrimination-exemption
Thank you Heather.
Yes, Howard is post-taxidermy, his opinions can be so anachronistic and painfully conservative. His views killed so much progress that this country was previously making at virtually all levels including that of women. Abbott is his Frankenstein. Both should be put into a HG Wells time machine packed with camphor balls, and sent back to the British 19th Century. It’s not just 1950s they exemplify it is far far further back.
“it is very personal when it comes to many in the Parliament and elsewhere allowing the biggest institutions of all time to get away with criminal behaviour”
I can’t agree more, and I also say that with their propensity for buying more war machines, belligerence, and the colonisation of our government by the military industrial complex, they have to go. Wars for profits, no other reason.
I have long thought that most of our problems in the world can be brought down to inequality. Certainly some people are born with disabilities that restrict their abilities to be equal at all levels, but it ought to be part of being human to strive for equality including that of women. This is evident not only with salaries and offers of promotion to the highest levels for women in Australia, but also how money during the pandemic was often fuelled towards male dominated jobs. That was yet another sign from Morrison et al that he thinks women are not equals.
If history tells us anything , there is no gain from repression of one group by another.
Exactly! However, unlike many of us here on these pages, I believe that they are adverse to the eons of history from year dot to today.
Like pre-cavemen? I’d go with that. Not even capable of cave paintings.
I mean look at Abbott who looks like a dinosaur, and Howard who looks like a monkey’s
Talking of ‘slippery’: I just read that the unnamed alleged rapist has checked himself into a private rehab facility. I read this as an attempt to claim that his addiction caused his lack of control. Is he abusing our society’s increasing empathy for mental illness?
More like an attempt to avoid a conviction on the grounds he could not form an intent to rape. Any decent person would now resign the LNP. Even the grub Kelly just jumped ship.
You have to be careful not to accidently throw all men in the same basket here. Many men like myself saw immediately through Morrison’s ridiculous nonsense about ‘Jen’ having to explain empathy to him through his daughters when discussing a woman suffering an alleged rape. If he didn’t know himself he does not represent the men I socialise with. But then the guy has to pay empathy consultants to look good on TV in front of drought stricken farmers too.
The issue within the Liberals has been going on for years well before even Abbott the misogynist was exposed in parliament house by Julia Gillard. For that she received “ditch the witch, Bob Brown’s bitch” and her father who “died of shame” from Alan Jones – the Liberals permanent friend. I note he did not say the same about Morrison’s father when he died. And because Gillard referred to men wearing blue ties on the other side of the house in her speech, she got Abbott and many other liberal men deliberately wearing blue ties post the 2013 election at every possible opportunity, and he made himself minister for women. George Brandis also called Larissa Waters a “disgrace” in the Senate simply because she asked if Tony Abbot might change his views on climate change due to the Pope’s Encyclical that year. Allusions to her moral status were also made because she was not married to her partner. Earlier Gillard was also called a barren woman because she had no children etc. Then even going back to Cheryl Kernot, she was the target, and never Gareth Evans over the affair they had.
This is a culture that belongs to the conservatives in government who are so disconnected with modern values that they are virtually living in the 19th Century. What is happening in parliament house bears a resemblance to how women where treated in that Century and reminiscent of Emmeline Pankhurst’s accounts of British politicians at the time. They actually had organized safe houses where they could access under age girls (by todays standards) for their sexual pleasures. Meanwhile in parliament house the same politicians masqueraded as pro-suffragettes. This was one of the principal reasons why Pankhurst wanted the vote for women, because they had no rights against their sexually predatory politicians and male employers.
I believe within the Liberal party and in other sections of parliament house, there is still a culture resembling these anachronistic views. Some of it may have to do with private boys schools where misogynist cultures still can thrive, but moreover it is simply part of the culture of men who do not like ceding their power over women and also use their power to abuse them. Let’s also note that some of the right wing white supremacy groups now around, for which the prime minister still remains tacit, also see women as a subspecies who deserve no rights and should be up for grabs for predatory males.
While I take a stand for men who respect women, I am also well aware that there are men in Australian society who do not, and that goes well beyond parliament house. It is a much larger discussion that Australia has to have concerning how men are socialised: they are often still taught not to be empathetic (it is not manly) and rewarded for being insensitive. It is even prevalent in the more violent sports that sometimes resemble a gladiatorial class. It is also related to reverence to the warrior hero and nostalgia of it, so strongly connected to nationalism, warfare, and being capable of violence by supressing empathy.
Since nothing changes in terms of domestic violence rates and ugly violent acts perpetrated against women in this country, I suggest that a national discussion on the socialisation of males in Australia, and some men’s propensity to give themselves license to resort to violence, is the one thing we can do to change the situation. It is not just about dealing with the results, or implementing support mechanisms for women, but about a cultural change in how men are socialised in this country and how the archetypal male is still perceived.
Given what we see from the federal government, they are unlikely to ever start such an initiative, even some of the women within the Liberals appear to be implicit in the cover-up and callous reaction to Brittany Higgins.
George i had a little to do with assisting workers who had endured a sexualized workplace which did have a rape culture. Wollongong City Council. I wont go into the details. Suffice to say the sexualized workplace that turned a blind eye to sexual assaults in the workplace was enabled by powerful (ALP) men feeling and having entitlement and immunity. They were bullet proof. They were green lighted by the local cops. Ms Higgins has been a victim of a terrible crime of power. Twice. Once when she was sexually assaulted. And secondly when Morrison assaulted her dignity and her rights to physical and emotional safety, respect and autonomy by his denial.
Thanks for your addition and I’m certain there is a larger culture out there where it occurs as you demonstrate – it’s time for a national conversation.
“Women hold up half the sky”. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you who said that.
It all comes down to promoting equality once again.
Surprisingly the prime minister who likes to bang on about sovereignty, albeit in the ‘cockpit’ of a fighter jet, simply does not understand that women should have the right to have sovereignty over their own bodies.
If ever anyone needed an image of an arrogant male power junky convinced of his own privilege its Shire Boy putting his arse into an American fighter jet.
And dropping his arse in to a fighter jet controlled in where it goes by the Pentagon and corporate America. What a great symbol of US sovereignty!
There’s two solutions for the LNP-Deep State’s situation that are par for course – get a teamplayer female Liberal staffer to make an absurd false accusation against the (must be so connected to not still be named) alleged rapist then provide Exclusives exposing this; or just ignore it and talk about something else, preferably killing two birds with one stone by reporting feminist movements or sexual assaults in China, Iran (but not Saudi Arabia), Turkey or some East European state.
Given the way in which Brittany Higgins continues to be treated, there is not much hope for the rest of us under a Morrison government.
Exactly!
BLATANT cover up from the moment the security guards didn’t call an ambulance or report the probable crime to the police. They need to explain their lack of action. After the office crime scene was cleaned Ms Higgins was kept quiet and shipped off to W.A. And we are told by the government nothing to see here, go back to your lives citizens.
Unfortunately, apart from a few notable individuals and the Guardian, most of the main stream media are running soft on this incident and pushing it to the back pages. The odious Morrison will live to lie another day. This mob don’t care how many lives they destroy as long as they stay in power. An alleged rape isn’t the worst thing they’ve covered.up. Probably time for Morrison to announce a cyber attack on Australia by “an unknown state actor” and kill off the story completely.
The allegations are that there was a serial rapist in a work place. Which happens also to be the Australian Parliament. Smith is the legal employer of parliamentary staff. For Ministerial staff they are employed directly by Ministers and ultimately the employer is the Prime Minister. This basic legal responsibility is still to be explained not by Morrison, a serial liar, but by Albanese the champion of worker protections and rights allegedly. For Greg Barnes benefit, the legal standard of proof in regard to workplace abuse is balance of probabilities. There is no presumption of innocence but procedural fairness must be accorded to the alleged abuser. And Morrison as an equivalent of a CEO denies any ultimate responsibility. What happened to vicarious responsibility of an employer in regard to workplace abuses? What happened to the legal responsibility of an employer to investigate, on the balance of probablities, and act on that investigation? If
this happened in the head office of Westpac we would accept a CEO asking his wife for guidance? The women allege that they were raped not in a seedy motel, not in the back alley of a night club but in a workplace. Shockingly the Australian Parliament. Whilst this doesnt change the shocking severity of the allegations it does add a dimension to the issue of protection and responsibility. During this appalling week Albanese slipped in popularity. He cant bruise a grape. If Morrison is the slipperiest then Albanese is the weakest opposition leader for the ALP in its history. Albanese who claims to be defending the rights of workers has shown himself to be pathetically ineffectual in regard to a shocking allegation of abuse in his own workplace. The Australian Parliament. We simply cant carry him into an election. He must go and go now. For mercy sake.
Few in the main stream media, or the prime minister’s apologist machine, are pointing out how close the Brittany Higgins alleged rape on the 23rd of March was to the federal election being called on the 11 April.
At the time the prime minister was seen to be lagging in calling the election and had been leader since 24th August 2018 after he knifed his ‘best mate’ Turnbull through transient loyalty. The election was held on the 18th of May 2019. That was when were we in the black already, but in the future. A contradiction in terms of the worst kind. That year post-election, was also marked with about half the normal sitting time in parliament, and the beginning of Morrison’s efforts as prime minister to shut down transparency, and avoid scrutiny whenever and wherever possible.
Considering the proximity to the election, it becomes immediately obvious why the Brittany Higgins allegations would have have had disastrous consequences on the election campaign for Morrison, especially at the time when all polls and betting agencies were strongly predicting a Labor win.
But it was also at a time when Liberal women wearing red shoes were challenging the Liberal Party itself for its sexist behaviour, the charge being led by Julie Bishop who left politics at that election. Julia Banks also left the party at the election after she had already triggered a revolt in August 2018, citing the reason she was leaving being due to the “cultural and gender bias, bullying and intimidation” of women in politics.
How devastating Brittany Higgin’s revelations would have been at the time for Morrison and the Liberal Party, the one that had groomed him all the way up to the top job. Given the context, how appealing a deliberate cover-up would have been for the most slippery prime minister in history.
For a man who now claims he knew nothing, it appears as just another case of gaslighting and fooling the public, and it lacks even a skerrick of credibility.
Update:
I’m just going to add a little more here that comes to mind as well. 2018 was also the notorious year for Barnaby Joyce and his affair with Vikki Campion. He resigned as the head of the Nationals at the end of February in 2018, and Turnbull banned ministers from having sex with staffers that same month. Then “in September 2018, to the dismay of the complainant, it was announced that the National Party’s eight-month investigation into the allegations of sexual harassment [concerning Joyce] had been unable to make a determination, and that the report would remain confidential”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnaby_Joyce#Affair_and_resignation
So that also adds to my case as to why the government would have very much liked to hide what happened to Brittany Higgins during what would have been a year to remember in terms of Liberal Party and Coalition transgressions against women, and the behaviour of males within the same parties and staffers.
.
Well done George. I hadnt made those connections.
I thought showing some historical context behind this gives even more support to your argument.
Your intelligence and logical scone did the job mate.
I’m just lucky to have a reasonably good memory for my age.
Morrison disguises himself as an angel of light, and means to capitalize on our love of the light in order to deceive. He wants us to think that he is good, truthful, loving, and powerful, but there will be no real transparency and the light will be shades of grey, the man is EVIL.
Absolutely, he acts one way but really does the opposite. If I was a Christian I’d call him the anti-Christ as I would Trump. The Pentecostal aberration he follows, which paints Jesus as a wealthy stock broker in my opinion, reminds me of Goebbels, who wrote a book aligning the views of Jesus with Nazism.
And yet, if Scott Morrison were on the “them”-side of Murdochracy there would be reporters banging on the gates of Horizon Church and ‘interviewing’ male members on their way in and out of their Sunday congregation about whether their wives and daughters have any ‘contact’ with Liberal staffers. Or the female members if they like being associated with a church whose member covers up assault particularly egregious sexual assault. Or the Church leaders Brad and Alison Bonhomme their thoughts and church’s teachings, 24-7, on the rape and assault of women, and if the young women at their church are safe.
But, as another article discusses today, the fourth estate in Australia is in fact the publishing arms and attack dogs of the first and second estate, and political and media persecution is a one-way street.
When it comes to taking responsibility, have we forgotten the Pain for No Gain victims of Robodebt already? State assisted suicide?
So far all the attention has been on the PM and it should remain there. But there are others, starting with the President and the Speaker who also have legal responsibilities as citizens to report their knowledge if they become aware of the commission of an “indictable offence”. The knowledge should be reported even if the victim does not wish to pursue the matter through to immediate further action. It then becomes part of police intelligence. It is not up to an employer to say they (in this case Senator Reynolds) are “respecting the wishes of the victim”.
The continuing stonewalling, inquiries with hidden findings, lack of accountability and general obsession with secrecy and the obsession with holding on to power at all costs have drawn others into this mess. They should now be called to account to see where their loyalty lies.
Is it suggested that parliamentary privilege absolves all who knew from their legal obligations? Each person who knew anything should be reminded of their legal obligations. We know there is no point asking questions in parliament. When was a question ever answered in parliament?
Part of his training was of course as minister for immigration. There he built a system of abuse and disregard for abuse and honed the skills of speaking up for normalised abuse.
Absolutely. It was also where he first shut down transparency by reducing reports on boats arriving and the refugee situation to once a week at first, then by refusing to report on “on water matters” which eventually became “no comment on operational matters”.
The cruelty presented to refugees and the ability to keep them out of sight out of mind, was always going to be transferred onto Australians (the more vulnerable the better) as well, as we have seen with Robodebt, something that Morrison introduced himself but has escaped any scrutiny over by the protective MS media.
George does Morrison “ask Jenny” about Kopika and Tharunicaa? Two little kids under security guards by orders of Dutton and Morrison. Two of the most vile creatures ever to disgrace our Parliament. And there have been many.
Exactly, but two little girls having brown skin and not being their own progeny might make Jen and Scott both draw a blank.
It is appalling treatment of human beings. It is the epitome of heartlessness and inability to empathise, and even inclines towards sadism.
George the great judge Justice Flick had this to say about the vile Tudge. Another Morrison minster with the morals of a Port Kembla milko on the shift workers run. Basically called him a criminal.
Flick wrote the bible on Administrative Law and Natural Justice and Civil Liberties.
“The Minister cannot place himself above the law and, at the same time, necessarily expect that this Court will grant discretionary relief. The Minister has acted
unlawfully. His actions have unlawfully deprived a person of his liberty. His conduct exposes him to both civil and potentially criminal sanctions, not limited to a
proceeding for contempt. In the absence of explanation, the Minister has
engaged in conduct which can only be described as criminal. He has
intentionally and without lawful authority been responsible for depriving a
person of his liberty. Whether or not further proceedings are to be instituted
is not a matter of present concern.” The full decision is here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2020/1354.html