Scott Morrison is boxed into a corner on gender equality, and it will take a Houdini-like performance for him or his government to escape without serious damage.
Brittany Higgins and Chanel Contos, two strong and savvy young women, have managed to create a movement that just might — and certainly should — change the course of history.
The clue to that was in Monday’s marches. In Sydney and Brisbane and Canberra and elsewhere, people rallied against an inequality that has been ignored for too long, as well as a prime minister whose inaction is perpetuating it.
But it wasn’t just the number of protesters that signalled how this might play out at the ballot box; rather, it was the breadth of people who left their homes and offices and schools to make this protest count.
Women and men. Students in full school uniform, accompanied by teachers and school principals. The very young and the very old. Professionals and tradies. Those with daughters, and those with sons. Mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters. Liberals, as well as those who have never voted for Scott Morrison’s side of politics.
This wasn’t children at a climate change rally he could send back to school. And that’s why the prime minister should be wary of the rapidly-moving comet headed in his direction.
The impact of what is now unfolding in schools and workplaces and on our streets is magnified by the fact that this is an issue that requires nuance and leadership and consultation and respect.
Scott Morrison just doesn’t have the skill set.
He hasn’t been helped by a ministry of men and women whose actions and comments also seem to show a disconnect between those in power and those feeling powerless.
“Not far from here, such marches, even now, are being met with bullets, but not here in this country. This is a triumph of democracy when we see these things take place.”
That was the prime minister’s actual response to the hurt and anger of tens of thousands of Australians who braved sun and wind and rain to be heard.
Yesterday he was quick to claim that he had been “egregiously misrepresented’’, but that’s how it was read — and shows up how this issue has exposed his weakness as a leader.
Scott Morrison could act here. He could act like a prime minister.
He could find a new attorney-general. And he should. But he won’t.
He could find a new defence minister. And he should. But he won’t.
He could apologise to Brittany Higgins and Chanel Contos and the thousands of other young women who have been raped or sexually abused. And he should. But he won’t.
He could lead the charge against the victim-shaming that is being allowed to run as an unsavoury undercurrent in this debate. And he should. But he won’t.
He doesn’t know how to sack a non-performing minister.
He doesn’t know how to say “I’m sorry”.
And he doesn’t have the ability — despite his alleged expertise in marketing — to shut down the ignorant attacks on young women brave enough to put their hand up.
The everyman with cap routine won’t work this time. Indeed, it will cost him dearly.
Scott Morrison has indeed been “egregiously misrepresented’’…by Scott Morrison.
He’s set a new standard here. In response to women complaining about being raped and sexually harassed in the very building in which he works – the one he claims should “set the standard”, his response is to say that the mere fact that they’re not also being shot is “a triumph of democracy”.
Astonishing.
How he can say he was “egregiously misrepresented” when his statement was made in Parliament and shown on TV where we could all see and hear his comment, I do not know.
One explanation is that $cottyFM doesn’t know the meaning of either “egregious” or “misrepresent” or maybe both. In the case of the former, it is quite possible, but it is not as regards the latter, given that Morrison has for years made both an art form and a living from industrial scale misrepresentation.
Gob stopping and mindless!
No matter how much you may wish for a lemon to be an orange, it will always be a lemon.
Morrison was never fit for the job. Ever.
Is it about Morrison doing his desperate Homer Simpson impersonation or is it really an executive out of control ? AC Grayling in his important book “The Good State” identifies a fatal flaw in our current Westminster styled/ ministerial responsibility based system of representative govt. No system is ideal Grayling argues, but past and current govts in countries like Australia, the UK, Canada and NZ – that are versions of, or based on the Westminster model – are really only partial democracies, or fall short of being fully functioning, legitimate democracies. He claims the actual lack of any real separation of powers between the legislature,the executive and the judiciary is the problem, which is mostly due to the domination by political duopolies or two party systems. For instance, the LNP and Labour, Republicans and Democrats, Tories and Labour, are real world, living examples of parties whose similarities are greater than their differences and share power in a seesaw of tenures in office. All of the above offer no actual alternatives to the status quo of their current economic power structures – they are primarily pro business with some secondary differences regarding the desired size and extent of social welfare services and social justice policies. For instance their tax systems are basically regressive, climate change legislation favours and protects the major carbon emission industries, high unemployment levels are maintained and designed to suppress wages, and social justice issues mostly ignored. But most worrying of all is when either of the above parties are in govt they control both the legislative (law making) and executive (law administration) processes and institutions and shape the judicial system. So apart from prioritising the interests of powerful economic lobby groups in legislation, the executive /the cabinet/ the parliamentary minority of ministers wield, discretionary, wide-ranging and unchecked power whilst in office. Whether it’s ignoring and/or covering up sexual assault and discrimination in the workplace, incarcerating a Sri Lankan refugee family on Christmas Island indefinitely, prosecuting a public servant and his lawyer for exposing the govt’s illegal bugging of the East Timorese Embassy for commercial advantage, implementing an illegal Centrelink debt recovery scheme with impunity, or allowing banks to access superfunds to increase home mortgage sales – surely there is a crucial need to address the effects of executive abuses of power if the causes can’t be.
Would proportional representation move things in the right direction? As well as a ban on donations and limits on lobbying?
Thank you that explains it clearly.
The system of government relies on integrity, honesty and “best interests” test. As is evident the political class, with some exceptions, lack integrity and honesty and apply the “best interests” test through a distorted lens. It is the reason why a strong ICAC is required. However the issue will always be who is watching the watchers!
Morrison’s paralysis in the face of a growing slew of issues creates a power vacuum that must be filled, and so far the states have been the reliable go-to arm of governance, making the LNP government look increasingly irrelevant. People will ultimately tire of Morrison’s routine of pretending to do something, while actually doing nothing. And on the odd occasions when he does decide to act, it’s always so tainted with self-interest, that it completely robs the gesture of any goodwill – for instance, the tourism “cut price airfares to marginal seats”, which is just sports rorts with wings – and the lightning-fast response to the FB v Media stoush, which you’d swear was a bigger issue than Covid the way the LNP set to it, while tens of thousands of stranded aussies overseas are left to swing in the breeze because they’re not Rupert Murdoch. Time and again, the Morrison government show no interest whatsoever in things that matter to the greater public, being totally focussed on what’s good for them politically. And there’s only so many times Scomo can do the daggy dad stuff, before it starts to aggravate enough of the people it used to charm, and that’s all that may be needed for him to lose the next election. Or get rolled by….who? Morrison, true to form, has avoided surrounding himself with talent or charisma, to avoid potential challengers. Josh would be the closest thing they have to a replacement when/if the time comes, unless the PM can find a new shtick that lets him hang in there.
It is a sad indictment of the LNP if Josh Frydenberg is mentioned as a leader. He is currently trying his best to emulate Costello and mismanage the economy. Another entitled individual with no particular experience or any leadership credentials – his spineless response to the current debate does not instil confidence.
It’s never the wrong time to wheel out this pearler from ex-Young Liberal Andrew Elder:
https://andrewelder.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-empty-mantle.html
Joshie still has some stench clinging to him from the never resolved question of who in Downer’s office leaked to Andrew Bold on the weekend 20-23 June 2003 a classified Top Secret ONA report on Iraq, written by Andrew Wilkie, in order to traduce Wilkie. He says he didn’t do it but the AFP never said he didn’t do it, only that there was insufficient admissable evidence to prosecute anyone.
“there was insufficient admissable evidence to prosecute anyone.”
They have rubber stamps with that sentence on over at the AFP – it saves time.
It certainly sounds familiar, where have I heard it lately?
His Government was elected, as [reactionary] conservatives, to maintain the status quo. I wouldn’t be holding my breath for change.
The simple and sad reality is that elections are won and lost on hip pocket issues for voters. These mostly rely on exploiting the environment whilst virtue signalling a remediation intention many decades in the future. That is why we make so little progress on social and enviornmental change, however passionate and justifiable the concerns.
You are, sad to say, correct. Sufficient electors vote on the basis of their perceived hip pocket interests – protecting what they have or gaining something more, deservedly of course – to determine the election result, even if they end up voting against their own best interests in the long run. Too few of them will ever realise they’ve been diddled, until it’s too late.
The present LNP government spends all its time and energy doing nothing more than arranging and dispensing handouts to its friends and gullible sections of the voting public, while punishing its enemies further down the socio-economic scale and wedging the opposition: on the one hand we have sports rorts for certain electorates, attacks on industry (‘union’) super, hastily struck legislation to let Murdoch have money off Google while getting neither to pay tax, sweeping the banking royal commission under a rug, and wedging Labor; on the other hand we have Robodebt, the dismantling of the Family Court, ‘mutual obligation’ for subsistence-level unemployed, perpetual internment of asylum seekers, and wedging Labor. The only other government activity of note is the purchase of colossally expensive military hardware.
Morrison’s taking these nefarious activities of ‘governance’ to an extreme because there’s nothing to his lust for power but the power itself, simply staying PM. Why busy yourself with social and environmental exigencies when in your mind the next election’s always only five minutes away.
Agreed, Cap’n, but the key word there is ‘perceived’ hip pocket. This perception is carried on a raft of illusion, which is informed by gut instinct. Unfortunately the ‘guts’ are still telling a majority of Australians that they are satisfied with the job that Morrison is doing, and that is beyond madness.
The political mind is not made by rational thinking, not even hip pocket concerns. It is a mix of biases, prejudices and stories that repeated often enough become accepted truths, like the ridiculous lie that the LNP are better economic managers.