Team Morrison and The Voter in 2021

 

The Shot, 21 September 2021:

Great Scott: the grand narrative of Scott Morrison

...On one end of the scale, we have the people who believe the entire charade of politics is made up and if it’s not made up then the “mainstreameeja” must all be in on it with them, sort of like fake moon landers but without the flags. On the other end are the people who let information flow over them like a long shower, obliviously taking it all in, the type who truly believe Scott Morrison once saved a lady from near death on a Sydney beach because 2GB said so…..

What Team Morrison want you to think over and above anything else, above the policy and the pressers and the talk of Oh-My-God nuclear submarines and the twitter chatter, what they want you to think when you think of Scott Morrison, when you talk to your friends in the supermarket checkout or swap the goss in your Facebook groups, when you go to vote, they want you to think that Scott Morrison is a strong leader, a hero of our times. They want you to feel it and know it deep to your bones.

They want you to think that Scott Morrison is our own powerful leader, the one that will lead Australia out of this mess, and they want that image embedded deep down into your subconscious, without any annoying detail to bother you or meddle with your own private photo album.

How they do that is by casting a vast, barely tangible net up into the sky, a grand narrative net, one that says: “Scott Morrison is strong. Scott Morrison is a hero. Scott Morrison will save you.”

The way they keep that imagery afloat is by pumping it full of air and reinforcing it all the time, constantly, every day of every week of every month in every way. Scott is strong. Scott is our hero. Scott will lead us all to safety.

Think of Scott Morrison holding up a plane in Kabul to save a woman and her baby. Or at least that’s what the Daily Telegraph told us. I’m going to ignore the dry retching noises coming from the audience, you ungrateful cynics. What’s that? It didn’t happen? Of course, it didn’t happen.

Sometimes, the truth has nothing to do with pumping the net up. Sometimes it does. As De Niro snaps in Wag The Dog,“What difference does it make if it’s true?” If you learn anything from our imaginary TED Talk, learn that reality, like detail, has no real place in the political grand narrative…...

The Sydney Morning Herald, 23 September 2021:

Scott Morrison’s momentous national security announcement last week should have been a turning point for him and the government. Instead, because he delayed making one tough call, leaving himself open to accusations of backstabbing and deception from a great friend and ally, he robbed himself of a much-needed reset.

A few days later he again squibbed what should have been a straightforward decision involving a senior colleague, on a matter which goes to the heart of transparency and probity.

The way Scott Morrison dealt with the French, and Christian Porter, says much about his management style.CREDIT:DIONNE GAIN

Both were about trust. Both provided insights into the most troubling aspects of Morrison’s character and management style. Both have left a very bad smell.

The first was the big-bang unveiling of the new Anglospheric alliance – upending decades of diplomatic endeavours in Asia – which included the planned acquisition of nuclear submarines from the US or the UK.

By waiting until the night before the announcement to advise President Emmanuel Macron (Morrison’s office refuses to answer when asked if they actually spoke) he was torpedoing the $90-billion contract with France for conventional submarines, he guaranteed they went nuclear.

The second sounded like a transmission from a parallel universe. Morrison presented Christian Porter’s resignation from Cabinet as industry minister after refusing to disclose names of anonymous donors as the action of a man upholding standards.

At the end of March, Morrison could have, should have, relegated Porter to the backbench until his personal problems were resolved, rather than try to maintain the fiction the issue was fixed by his removal as attorney-general.

The fiction was compounded after Porter released his updated register of interests, then said he could not name donors to a blind trust helping pay the costs of his defamation suit against the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan over the airing of historic rape allegations, which Porter vehemently denied.

Desperate to get some clear air for his major strategic announcement, soon befouled by the French, Morrison had tried to buy time by asking his department head, Phil Gaetjens, to advise on the bleeding obvious – whether Porter had conformed with the ministerial code of conduct.

Then on Sunday afternoon, without waiting for Gaetjens, Morrison hastily called a press conference to announce Porter had upheld those standards by opting to resign from the ministry.

He could have, should have, said Porter’s actions did not conform to the high standards expected of a member of his government and sacked him. But he didn’t. He also said Porter had disclosed the amount he had received. He hadn’t.

Incredibly, when asked whether Porter should remain in Parliament while in receipt of the money (given the disclosure rules which apply to all parliamentarians, requiring them to fess up to everything including freebie footy tickets), Morrison protested that had nothing to do with him because he was no longer Porter’s boss.

Of course. He is only the Prime Minister, the leader of the government and the leader of the Liberal Party…..

The Australian, Newspoll, 19 September 2021:

Is Scott Morrison's response to the National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces genuine? Or is it just busy work to hold the line until after the next federal election?

 “The Australian Government has agreed to (in full, in-principle, or in-part) or noted all 55 recommendations in the Report.” [Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, media release, 8 April 2021]

“are either agreed wholly in part or in principle, or noted where they are directed to governments or organisations other than the Australian government” [Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, quoted in Sky News online, 8 April 2021]

So after ignoring the National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces Final Report for over 12 months, what do Morrison’s weasel words in the quotes above indicate?

Scott Morrison & Co say they are proceeding to:

* order a survey every four years to provide data on sexual harassment;

* provide educational resources for young people of working age on workplace rights and sexual harassment;

* educate and train staff at the Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission, Safe Work Australia, WHS regulators and workers’ compensation bodies concerning sexual harassment;

* lead a new collaboration by government, unions, employers and employer associations called Respect@Work aka the Workplace Sexual Harassment Council; and

* the Workplace Sexual Harassment Council is charged with:

a. providing high-level advice on development of guidelines and resources to ensure that all services providing information, advice and support in relation to sexual harassment can provide accurate information, make appropriate cross-referrals, and collect consistent data

b. after three years, considering the need for a centralised, accessible service to provide information and advice in relation to workplace sexual harassment;

* develop a Respect@Work website to provide the general public, employers and workers with free information; and

* Advise all state governments that they should ensure that relevant bodies responsible for developing training, programs and resources for judges, magistrates and tribunal members make available education on sexual harassment. 

Somehow in this 7-item list I don't see any immediate, hands-on, practical actions by the Morrison Government that will see the rates of sexual harassment, sexual assault, physical assault and/or murder by a partner or former partner, of women and girls in any state or territory decrease in the next few years.

I sincerely hope I am wrong.

 

Quotes of the Week

 

“When Scott Morrison says he’s listening, it’s usually to himself.” [Dennis Aitkins writing in The New Daily, 27 March 2021]

“This prime minister speaks almost exclusively to one cohort of voters: men at risk of voting Labor.” [Political editor and journalist Katharine Murphy, writing in The Guardian, 27 March 2021]

Liberal Party women are beginning to openly speak truth to power

 

IMAGE: NSW Liberal Party

Catherine Cusack (left) is a member of the NSW Legislative Council, hailing from the Northern Rivers region. She has been a member of the NSW Parliament since 2003,was the first female NSW Young Liberal President in 1985-1986 and sat on the Liberal Party Executive 2000-2003.

Here she speaks about behaviours displayed by men within her own party - cronyism, rampant self-interest, alcohol abuse, election campaign dirty tricks, pushing female politicians in front of the cameras when questions get awkward, male colleagues expecting support from women for their flagrant abuse of power.

The Guardian, 25 March 2021:

I joined the Young Liberals in 1982 when things were definitely on the up for women. It was an exciting time – a youthful Nick Greiner was state leader, Rosemary Foot his deputy. I found an amazing peer group that was not bored to tears by my interest in politics. I met my future husband there – we are both former YL state presidents. When our sons, now aged in their 20s, joined, we were jokingly accused of trying to establish a monarchy inside the YLs. The Liberal party has been my life.

I entered the New South Wales parliament in 2003. John Howard as prime minister openly celebrated his female MPs, whom he frequently credited with saving his government. In 2004 Chris McDiven became our first female federal president – but sadly the storm clouds had already gathered. This momentum for women came to a crashing halt with the brutal factional wars that transformed the culture and behaviour of the party, harmed our reputation and triggered an exodus of ordinary members.

Howard had tried unsuccessfully at the 2003 Adelaide federal convention to warn of the dangerous path we were on. “I think factionalism is weakening and eroding the strength of this party and the respect of this party in the Australian community,” he said.

As he feared, his message fell on deaf ears. The Howard government’s 2007 campaign was derailed when high-ranking Liberal volunteers were arrested in the dead of night letterboxing a fake Labor campaign brochure. The destructive factional wars and resultant toxic behaviours had gone too far – a halt was called to the infighting and a small group of factional leaders agreed to share power. And so began the Liberal boys’ club that has been calling the shots ever since.

“We have some young men on big salaries, doing aggressive factional work … they are intoxicated with power as well as alcohol”

The factional system relies on compliance and patronage, so straight away the idea of merit-based selection went out the window. This doesn’t just affect women – it affects everyone. Even Mike Baird needed a special deal to secure Liberal selection for the 2007 election in Manly. Favours given and favours repaid is how this works.

In other states, this model was nicknamed “the NSW disease”. Unfortunately, it spread. It has escalated.

An MP might be asked to allocate a staff position to a factional operative and in exchange his/her preselection is assured. Step away from the factions and they might all combine to unseat you. In this way, the factional model is part taxpayer-funded.

So now we have some young men on big salaries, doing aggressive factional work out of some ministerial and MP offices. And they are intoxicated with power as well as alcohol. Their bosses need to bear much of the blame. They legitimise and tolerate behaviours that serve their own self-interests in terms of getting and retaining power.

There are many reasons why women across Australia so triggered and upset by what’s going on in Canberra. Personal experience, solidarity with the victims – but most of all it has been the sense of powerlessness they feel when the issues are seemingly dismissed. It has happened over and over again and this time they are telling us: “Enough!”

Maybe there are bubbles inside the Canberra bubble? I don’t know – I am just convinced the PM needs to seek out and listen to his female MPs, who have their own stories to tell.

An alleged rape has occurred inside the citadel of Australian democracy.

Our prime minister needs to be told why people are so angry. And it’s up to his female MPs to take it to him direct.

It’s not really a choice any more. For years there has been a ludicrous expectation by Liberal leaders that we female MPs can be wheeled out to defend these disgusting behaviours. When the power to fix the problem lies with them – not with us.

It has reached the point where our personal integrity is being publicly pitted against our loyalty – it’s upsetting and embarrassing and, frankly, they should not be asking that of us.

Tell him.

Step up, be hopeful and make the case for change. Most importantly, back one another. The moment has chosen us.

Tell him.

And conservative women in the media have begun to join in....

IMAGE: The Sydney Morning Herald

Niki Savva is a journalist who has worked in the media for around thirty years. Her mid-career employment outside of journalism was as a press secretary to then Australian Treasurer and Liberal MP for Higgins Peter Costello for six years, before becoming a policy adviser to Australian Prime Minister and Liberal MP for Bennelong John Howard for four years. She is now employed by News Corp.

The Australian, 24 March 2021:

There were a few things Scott Morrison got right with his mea culpa press conference on Tuesday. The first was that he had it. It was at least a sign that the Prime Minister finally realised just how much trouble he was in.

He has floundered for five weeks. Revelations by Peter van Onselen of yet another scandal close to home spurred him to front the media to talk about floods, then apres that deluge he tried to construct a shelter from the other deluge threatening to drown him.

He tried everything. He was repentant, he sought forgiveness, he admitted he made mistakes, he promised to make amends without saying exactly how, he allowed his emotions to overflow as he expressed his love for his family and his faith.

Morrison was tearful in front of the media, then choked up again as he walked into his party meeting, before he even spoke, although that might have had more to do with the way his press conference ended, with yet another disaster, than how it began.

He had to take a moment to compose himself before urging his female MPs to be trailblazers like Dame Enid Lyons, the first woman elected to the House of Representatives.

Liberal women have suffered by allowing themselves to be chained to the talking points, to become the new Stepford Wives of politics, often forced to defend the indefensible. Now at least they are free to talk about quotas.

That is useful, although quality of the candidates as well as the capacity of the leader to consult, listen and act matters more. Also, hearing women of influence bemoan the toxic culture they helped perpetuate by bullying other women is sickening. But that’s a column for another day.

One of the many problems faced by Morrison during this rolling crisis is that the case against him and the failure of government to protect women has been prosecuted largely by women. The government’s senior women, compromised or timid or too ambitious to even think about breaking out, have held back.

The defence, such as it is, has been mounted largely by men, mainly the Prime Minister, although one of the best suggestions came from Russell Broadbent for a national gathering of women, which Morrison says is already in train, which came as a surprise to people.

Strong, articulate women, such as Grace Tame, followed by Brittany Higgins, began the essential difficult work of demolishing structures that have protected predators. Their cause was relentlessly, devastatingly pursued by Labor frontbenchers Tanya Plibersek, Kristina Keneally, Penny Wong and Catherine King, the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young, crossbenchers Zali Steggall and Helen Haines, and a slew of opposition backbenchers. It’s a bomb squad planting devices, detonating or defusing them.

And Morrison and his government have been spectacularly, conspicuously, inept in their responses. Unfortunately, the reset the Prime Minister had embarked on literally ended in tears.

In portent and content it was biblical, full of thunderbolts and lightning, following a sadly familiar pattern. So much about it was wrong. It was too late coming. Too much of it was about him. Too much of it didn’t stack up. There were too many deflections, too many straw men and women, and it climaxed with vengeful threats of retribution after he was challenged by a journalist.

Morrison was not criticised (Twitter aside), as he sought to imply, for discussing the rape allegations made by Higgins with his wife, Jenny, or for talking about his daughters. He was criticised because he had failed to grasp the gravity of the situation himself. His wife had to explain it to him, and even after that he lapsed again, like in his scripted speech effectively telling March 4 Justice protesters they were lucky they were “not met with bullets”. He sort of apologised for that by saying he hadn’t meant to offend.

Careful attention needs to be paid to every event and every word because of the slippery, tricky words or technicalities used by others and by him to extricate or protect him or change the conversation. They go like this: don’t ask, don’t tell; don’t show and don’t tell; if you don’t know, you can’t be blamed; even if you do know, it doesn’t mean you have to accept responsibility; keep denying, even if you have misled parliament, because eventually the story will move on.

It has been a wretched and shameful period for the government. So many important matters surfaced that the Prime Minister claimed not to know or hadn’t made it his business to find out, compounded by the other thing he purported to know that never happened…..

Read the full article here.

Speaking Up, Australia, 15 March 2021

 

@CognitiveTX

Liberals caught behaving badly - yet again. WARNING: Contains offensive comment

Apparently some NSW Young Liberals thought that behaving like sexual predators was a fun way to campaign in the lead up to the March 2019 state election.

That is until the matter came to the notice of the voting public and their party superiors decided it wasn't funny anymore because it could cost them votes.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 February 2019:

Four NSW Young Liberals have been kicked out of the party for making lewd and derogatory comments about women in an online chat group meant for election campaigning.

The four used the dating app Tinder to connect with women who they hoped to convince to vote Liberal and then made sexually explicit comments about them in a Facebook group.

In one instance, one of the Young Liberals who works for a senior NSW Liberal MP, posted a photo of a woman he was chatting with on Tinder, describing her as a “potato".

"A potato that can vote," the Young Liberal wrote.

                           

“Then root and boot her and leave some HTVs (how to vote cards). F..k I could go some fries right now."

Other comments in the chat include references to a woman voting "blue", the Liberal colour.

"I like blue but don't give me blue balls," another male member of the group wrote.

One of the men replied: "I don't think he wants to bang a potato".

Several female Young Liberals in the group chat were horrified by the comments and pleaded with their male colleagues to end the discussion.

"Anytime would be a good time to stop," one woman in the group wrote.

Really disappointing to see so many nasty comments about a woman who you don't know."

Another said: “People wonder why women don’t want to join the Liberal Party."

One of the men responded: "Sorry to have started it, just thought it was a fun way of campaigning."

The group, set up when several Young Liberals were helping in last year’s South Australian election, had 17 members, including NSW Young Liberals president Harry Stutchbury.

Other members in the group hold executive positions with the Young Liberals and some work for senior NSW ministers and MPs. One of the four who was disciplined works for a NSW Nationals minister.

Mr Stutchbury, who did not make any comments in the chat group, said he received a complaint from women the morning after the discussion.

He said he told the four men involved that their behaviour was not acceptable but he took no further action and it was not reported to the party's head office.

The first Liberal Party officials knew of the online chat was when they were alerted to it by The Sun-Herald, despite the comments being made almost 12 months ago.

"I welcome the decisive action the party has taken," Mr Stutchbury said.

The four received the maximum available penalty late on Friday and were suspended from the party for six months after officials saw the contents of the chat group…..

The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 February 2019:

Two NSW Young Liberals who were kicked out of the party after making lewd comments about women have been sacked from their state government jobs.

The Liberals, one who worked for Kiama MP Gareth Ward and the other for Tourism Minister Adam Marshall, no longer have jobs with the government, sources have confirmed.

No women please, we're Liberals!

Rather says it all really…….

The Age, 30 April 2017:

Young Liberals at one of Australia's most prestigious universities have been accused of sexism and  misconduct during a student election.

One young woman, who is a member of the Melbourne University Liberal Club, was told she was excluded from an event because she would make men "a bit uncomfortable."

She stood up and spoke about her experience at the club's annual general meeting last month, reading out a message she had received from president Xavier Boffa, who also works for shadow attorney general John Pesutto.

Mr Boffa wrote that he had wanted to invite the woman to an event but hadn't because "a couple of the guys were a bit uncomfortable about inviting a chick."

Mr Boffa confirmed with Fairfax Media that he had sent the message but made no further comment.  Club members who spoke to Fairfax Media said the event was held in November at a city bar and only attended by Liberal club members and alumni. 

Oxford Dictionary of English: "Shouldn't the usage examples in this dictionary reflect that understanding of sexism in language?"

Excerpt from Sexism in the Oxford Dictionary of English by Michael Oman-Reagan at SPACE + ANTHROPOLOGY, 22 January 2016:

The Oxford Dictionary of English is the default dictionary on Apple’s Mac OS X operating system. Anyone using a Mac, an iPad, or iPhone will get definitions

from this dictionary. So why is it filled with explicitly sexist usage examples?  Here are those I’ve found so far.

“a rabid feminist”

“the rising shrill of women’s voices”

a mysterious “female psyche”

When it comes to a high degree like a PhD, then the example is a man.

Research? That’s also done by men.

A PhD and research might be men’s work, but women can do “all the housework.”

As the Oxford dictionary says in the usage example for “sexism”:

“sexism in language is an offensive reminder of the way the culture sees women.”

Shouldn’t the usage examples in this dictionary reflect that understanding of sexism in language?

How Julia Gillard's experience inspires or discourages women to enter politics

How Gillard’s experience inspires or discourages women to enter politics

  

Does being reminded of the sexism that Julia Gillard faced as Australia’s first female prime minister challenge women to enter politics or discourage them?

“We found a polarising effect with women responding in different ways depending on their attitudes to gender roles,” said Dr Christopher Hunt, lead author of the research from the University of Sydney’s School of Psychology.

Hunt, together with the School’s Dr Karen Gonsalkorale and Dr Lisa Zadro published their findings in the European Journal of Social Psychology, last month.

“For women who hold traditional gender values - those who think that women should be modest, place their families before themselves and put a lot of importance in taking care of their home and their physical appearance - being reminded of Julia Gillard’s experiences made them want to avoid politics,” Dr Hunt said.

“However for women who rate themselves as non-conformists in regards to gender values, being reminded of Gillard’s difficulties motivated them to go into politics - she appears to be a role model for this group.”

These effects were not related to any changes in women’s belief in their ability to lead. 

“So the changes seem to be driven by thinking about how others will react to them – about the possibility of a backlash,” Dr Hunt said.

“International research shows that women in countries with more women politicians display greater interest in politics than women from countries with lower female representation. Our research suggests such role model influence changes according to women’s other beliefs and values.”

The study assessed 167 Australian undergraduate students on a measure of conformity to gender norms. They then either read statements about generic difficulties experienced by leaders or the gender-based difficulties experienced by Gillard before completing a questionnaire on their attitudes to leadership and certain occupations.

For male participants, those with high conformity to masculine norms showed a greater belief in their own leadership capabilities after reading about Gillard’s gender-based difficulties than when reading about generic difficulties, while low conforming men showed the opposite pattern.

“This suggests that Gillard’s example provoked a defensive reporting of leadership capability  -  consistent with research showing that women who succeed in traditionally male domains are often perceived to be threatening,” said Dr Hunt.

The next step in continuing this work is to see if these findings were specific to politics or whether the same findings would apply to other professions.

“It would be interesting to apply this research to the business community where research has suggested gender roles are even more strictly enforced than in politics.”

The Australian Minister for Women is clearly not capable of understanding his role

The Australian 26 March 2011

On 30 December 2014 The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

The number of women on government boards has slipped below the 40 per cent target and a new report says men made up 75 per cent of new appointees within Tony Abbott's own Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet this year.

The Prime Minister, who is also the Minister for Women, has assured voters he is committed to the gender diversity target but the opposition says the statistics should "set the bells ringing".

The annual Gender Balance on Australian Government Boards Report says overall female representation slipped from its peak of 41.7 per cent under Labor in 2013 to 39.7 under the Coalition in 2014.

The Coalition drastically slashed the number of board positions from 4039 to 3206 when it came into government as part of its deregulation agenda.

The report, prepared by the Office for Women, which sits in the Prime Minister's Department, PM&C, said there were 639 new appointments to boards as of June 2014.

63.5 per cent of those positions were offered to men, meaning 36.5 per cent went to women……

"The government is committed to the 40:60 target and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women is working with colleagues to ensure this target is achieved," said a spokesman for Mr Abbott….

Not only has female board representation slipped significantly, the self-appointed Minister for Women clearly does not understand the gender diversity policy he is supposed to support.

A 40:60 target? One presumably giving 40 positions to women and 60 to men?

No, the real target is 40:40:20.

Where women hold at least 40 per cent of Australian Government board positions, men hold another 40 per cent of these positions and the remaining 20 per cent can be held by either gender.

That he doesn’t understand or chooses to ignore this target is clearly demonstrated by his own Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet with its 16 boards and 170 active positions, where only 50 women (29.4%) hold any of these positions, and of the 87 new board appointments in this particular portfolio in 2013-14 only 21 were female.

The gender imbalance becomes more pointed when one realises that the Gender Balance On Australian Government Boards Report 2013-14 only includes those boards covered by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) which have some level of input or sign-off from particular representatives of the Government.

That is:

* the Prime Minister alone;

* one or more Australian Government ministers;

* the Governor-General in Council; and

* the Cabinet.

Overall the Abbott Government is exceeding the gender diversity target’s set quota for male government board members and failing to meet the set board member quota for females.

Here is the breakdown of gender diversity by portfolio:

The Sydney Morning Herald 14 December 2014