For Christine Holgate, the new patron saint of downtrodden female executives, it was all black and white.
At the Senate inquiry into her ousting as Australia Post chief yesterday, she and her supporters (and even former detractors) wore suffragette white as Holgate spectacularly painted her male enemies — from her former chairman to the prime minister — as blackest black.
Yet the air in the theatre that was yesterday was actually thick with grey — a fog of changing attitudes, differing perceptions, gender wars, secret government reports and, above all, the stench of hypocrisy from all sides of politics.
Indeed special shout-outs go to Labor’s Kimberley Kitching also in white — despite being responsible for sparking the whole Cartier watch outrage which led to Holgate’s demise — sports rorts “victim” Bridget McKenzie from the Nationals ,and the new feminist alliance now known simply as Pauline Hanson-Young.
It was a polished and commanding performance from Holgate, in stark contrast to her last disastrous appearance before the Senate on October 22 last year which was the catalyst for her downfall.
For her it was a chance to set the record straight, although some might argue it was more a chance at payback for what was at best a terrible case of unfair dismissal and at worst — in her own words — an epic case of bullying, humiliation, intimidation and lies that left her suicidal.
She did not hold back on her brutal demolition of Australia Post chair Lucio Di Bartolomeo who she accused of lying and fabricating evidence. She then demanded he too must be sacked.
She also claimed he “curried favour “with his political bosses, and for good measure she damned the entire Liberal-stacked board, except for one independent exception, which raises the question why she hadn’t bothered about these directors’ dubious CVs which were widely known during her previously happy tenure.
Di Bartolomeo appeared before the inquiry in the afternoon, but his understated performance received far less attention than the saturation coverage of Holgate’s sensational testimony in the morning. He refused to resign or even apologise to Holgate even though he admitted she had been treated “abysmally” but, like much of yesterday, it was not clear just who was the culprit.
He seemed to try the gracious approach, heaping praise on Holgate as a “very good chief executive” which raises another question: why did he name her replacement the day before?
The one time he did seem to get fired up was when asked specifically about those damned Cartier watches. He said although Holgate had authority to award bonuses “that doesn’t mean she could do what she wants” and added: “She has to use her discretion with taxpayer funds.” In this case he thought it was not “appropriate”.
It summed up Holgate’s perceived mistakes and ones she admitted and apologised for again yesterday and also in her resignation letter of last November 2 — which is now a matter of dispute and, like so much else, even murkier after yesterday.
Despite three hours of testimony from Holgate and another hour from the chairman it was still not clear whether she had resigned, or even — as her arch defender Pauline Hanson suggested yesterday — whether she was still CEO. Even Holgate raised that prospect, pointing out she was still listed as such on the company’s website.
She now disowns her November 2 resignation letter to the board and seems to claim it was sent under duress which given evidence about her mental health during the ordeal sounds feasible.
However, it again falls into grey areas. In the four months since, she has never publicly disavowed the accompanying lengthy press release listing her reasons for resigning and which included these words: “I have no animosity towards the government and have enjoyed working with the prime minister.”
And just to confirm how much the prevailing winds have changed since then, her press release opened with the widely quoted vow: “I am not seeking any financial compensation.”
So it’s important to note a small quote at the end of her first television appearance in five months on last night’s 7.30 on the ABC where Laura Tingle asked her if she was “considering legal actions against Australia Post and others”.
“Possibly,” Holgate said, adding she hadn’t yet made a decision.
This saga is far from over.
What did you think of Holgate’s testimony? Write to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say section.
If Holgate had rewarded the four Australia Post executives with $5K cash each the story would never have come up for discussion. Her budget for bonuses was $150K & it appears the cash option would’ve been more prudent rasher than Cartier bling.
Why is there no discussion of her predecessor, Ahmet Fahour, splashing $2.5M (million) on guests to visit the London Olympics in 2012? Australia Post (ie: taxpayers) paid for 78 people to participate in Fahour’s unprecedented junket. Fahour had the gall to defend the expense in Senates Estimates back then due to all guests being ‘important or potentially important Australia Post customers’. Even the potentials got a guernsey.
In comparison Holgate’s $20K for Cartier watches looks remarkably cheap. Except she’s a woman.
…more prudent rather than Cartier bling.’
Exactly, but alors. Exactly.
Zut, not but.
I think the gender angle is past its use by date in this particular saga. Have you heard about the story of the little boy who cried wolf? Its a bit sexist, but has some valuable lessons.
I am struggling to think of any CEO in Australia who has been castigated &
‘executed’ from the floor of the House.
It’s a remarkable coincidence that the first one was a highly competent female. Coincidence…?
Therefore it MUST be because she is female?
You’re entitled to your opinion, but from my perspective every comment you contribute ends up talking about gender bias.
Holgate herself said gender was only a small factor of it. I didnt know about the auspost privatization issue when i first commented on the Holgate saga, but there is enough stench there to explain why she got on the wrong side of the board/gov, without throwing gender into the equation.
I believe in the core of your cause (you can read my comments elsewhere) but I know what’s going to happen if women blame gender everytime a woman ‘fails’ at sonething. Its exactly the crying wolf situation. It gives misogynists a justification to dispute the legitimacy of the movement.
The BLM movement got into the same situation by rioting everytime someone was shot, and then occasionally it was shown that the person pulled a gun on the cops etc.
That’s enough, Bettina.
Bang on. It’s all about the Cartier and its pub test results
So, NBN pays bonuses of $78 million, when for way too many Australians, the NBN is a total dud and you surely should ask just what KPI’s were established to warrant these bonuses. A typical federal politician probably rorts (according to the rules, but the rules are poor) at least $20,000 per year on their travel allowances – even before you get to politicians conveniently having some “political” business near a major sporting event (Julie Bishop always had business in Perth when the Eagles were playing at home) or using the government jet to fly to a donor’s function or to jet the limp-dick Gormless Cormann around while he was spruiking for his OECD role, but these watches somehow enliven all manner of voter grievances. Are we just totally stupid or what? We should see right through Bargearse’s feeble, facile and putrid attempt to create a political distraction, but not enough of us will.
True…
As an ordinary, elderly observer my take from this is that it does not pay to be a clever, intelligent woman with integrity in a position of power – remember the appalling treatment received by Gillian Triggs. IMHO both these women have more ability than the entire front bench of the government put together – so of course they had to be humiliated.
As another elderly ordinary observer I agree, in general. However I do think that the aggregate ability of the entire front bench amounts to not much at all. And aggregated front bench integrity amounts to even less.
I was horrified when I watched the PM tell the CEO of a statutory authority that they were to be sacked from the floor of the HofR. He appeared to be effectively usurping the power and responsibilities of the board and apparently without the facts.
He may well have had information he wasn’t providing, he may have felt that an LNP appointed board could be told what to do, notwithstanding the legislation or he may have considered that CEO Holgate would go quietly but he was wrong on many counts to as he did.
‘to do as he did’.
Morrison is bad at reading women. And excellent at underestimating them.
Acute and nuanced analysis. The whole reeking pantomime is now a mess of double standards, cynical opportunism, and above all else odiously offhand partisan and personal politicising of misery.
Rule one: never, never, never, never run with an angry mob. Any angry mob. No matter how righteous the cause. The powerful will always shanghai your passion and your hard organisational grunt work.
Morrison now meeting ‘privately’ with Brittany Higgins. Could be that progressives – including natch the ever-bandwagon-hijacking ALP – has now haplessly boxed itself into a corner on this issue. Can’t do much now but applaud the ol’ Daggy Dad for trying his jolly old daggy best to ‘change with the times’, right? I imagine there’ll be some heartwarming, healing photos of the ‘private’ meeting, and who knows, perhaps Higgins might even be persuaded to take up some kind of semi-formal gender-advisory reform role with the government, in its time of unprecedented change on these complex ishoos…etc.
If the meeting is portrayed the way you suggest, progressives won’t be boxed in at all. They’ll rightly see it was another PR stunt.
Maybe you should wait to see what Ms HIggins has to say about it. Or maybe she won’t say anything at all. Either way, I suspect you’ll have another go at her.
What I’m really interested in is whether or not the actual police charge a man with the actual rape that he allegedly committed against Ms Higgins, and then the actual outcome of the actual trial that actually takes place.
He will offer her a job. Great PR move and it will shut her up.
Higgins should not meet privately with Morrison.
By going public, she found massive support. To throw that all away to meet with Morrison IN PRIVATE is a huge mistake. Make the meeting public or dont meet the him at all.
Yes I absolutely agree. But temperamentally/ideologically Higgins is a Liberal (as is her partner), and until it became useful to her personally, at no point to my knowledge had she ever before shown any particular interest in or support for the vast network of lifelong dedicated DV, anti-abuse, gender equity and legal networks that have grappled with this stuff for decades…and have now of course made her a household name (and netted her a quarter million dollar book deal, and that private PM meeting the public march leaders, I think rightly, rejected.)
All while we are still yet to see the actual man already so accused, tried and convicted in the public-meeja kangaroo court…actually charged with raping her. He is a person too, you know. He does have to live with this daily, too. Every time Higgins is public described as a ‘brave hero’ his accepted ‘guilt’ is further entrenched. But as with Porter…what if it didn’t happen the way Higgins remembers it, says it happened? What then? Does it matter? If that man – whose identity, as with Porter, everyone in the Canberra bubble will know – was your son or brother or husband or friend, would it matter to you then?
I wish Higgins no further ill, but I suspect the anti-gendered violence lobby, and progressives and feminists generally, are kidding themselves if they expect much reciprocated collegiate support from her in the long run. Of course she was going to meet the PM privately, just as of course the upper-middle class private school alumni Grace Tame was going to say ‘yes’ to a glam cover shoot and ‘guest edit’ gig for the supremely upper middle class house organ, Marie Claire.
The well-to-do women who have become the ‘stars’ of this manufactured ‘moment of feminist seismic change’ are ordinary garden variety human narcissists. Like most of us they’ve respond to the world through the lens of their own self-serving needs (and wants). I wish no-one who’s been through any kind of abusive ordeal any further hurts, and everyone’s entitled to do the best for themselves. But controversial as it is to say it, there are grades of abusive ordeal and degrees of victimhood, suffering and vulnerable powerlessness. And – above everything – priorities of ‘crisis’ response triage that a society ought to embrace as a result of such gradations. We’re supposed to help the neediest first, and most.
The outcome of this latest witch hunting outbreak of middle class hysteria – yes, deliberate word choice (aimed as much at the many craven, foolish, shrieking male cheerleaders who’ve been stampeded into self-loathing woke-mansplaining/lecturing about abuse, as at any foolish, shrieking women) – is that a handful of victims who’ve had relatively uncatastrophic experiences of sexual abuse, and who had the capacity and resources to navigate them fairly well, have been turned into iconic representations of all victims. With the result that overwhelming resources and priority are now being focussed on attending to arguably the least needy first, and most. In Tame’s case particularly the State tried, convicted and jailed her abuser, then jailed him again when he got too uppity in his freedom. Beyond the vigilante championing of Nina Funnell, Marque Lawyers and Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids – and I suppose being an attractive and articulate blonde – I am not quite sure why she is even Australian of the Year. She is no Rosie Batty.
OK, fine, that’s a bit snide. Fine, I get it. Nasty old man, me, scared of ‘strong women’. and the ‘changing times and gender landscape’. Neither is so, but I’m quite consigned by now to being dismissed as a misogynist, MRA, rape apologist, whatever. I’ve got nothing to prove to any progressive or feminist, and no interest in patronising either by gilding any lilies. What I’m pointing out about this recent odiously narcissistic farce is just…true. More so than not, at least.
That’s enough for me. And, for sure, from me too. So I’ll put a sock in it on this ‘ishoo’. Thank you as always, Crikey.
I agree it’s a nuanced article, and one that doesn’t slag off Holgate in the way you did yesterday.
I’m sure Ms Holgate will survive my mighty pale, male, stale titanic wrath, the poor fragile little millionaire executive petal. Especially once she’s stripped us taxpayers of another few million in unfair dismissal settlement, audio.
These people are not caring, sharing, touchy-feely woke progressives, matey. They are self-serving individualistic opportunists and graspers, taking the p*ss out of our shared community.
Vagina or not. Don’t be a useful idiot to their featherbedding.
Oh yeah. Holgate was really taking the p*as out of our shared community when she sought to keep banking services in rural areas.
But whatever… Rich executives always bad. Poor people always put upon with no agency… Says the latter’s self-appointed spokesperson railing against “identity politics”.
Holgate is an excellent Senior Executive with an impressive CV. And the Bank@Post deal was a good one, albeit the fruit of many more people’s grinding work than her, or even the four Execs who got their (yes, modest) bonuses. None of that is the point.
The point is that Holgate is part of a privileged, elite executive class that has lost all sense of fiscal proportion and now culturally and habitually rewards itself for ruinously short term corporate ‘gains’ that are mostly about meeting personalised gateway performance targets, usually share price or dividend derived. Case in point is Blackmores; Holgate stepped gracefully off that temporarily rising elevator just at the moment when the unsustainable ‘irrational exuberance’ of the Chinese powdered milk buy-ups was flattening. The company’s Market Cap has plummeted since those days. But even that’s partly by-the-by.
‘Taking the p*ss’ is Holgate suddenly pretending to be a victim of sexist bullying from a Board she was perfectly happy to work with for so long: it’s playing the white suited suffragette symbol so cynically (complete with slick self-marketing and press schedules) when she’s never showed the slightest interest in DV/abuse/equity issues before: it’s claiming to have ‘always’ opposed the secret privatisation report (really?); it’s cultivating a near-cult following from the thousands of regional small businesses owners who in fact were the beneficiaries of many, many Australia Post employees’ hard yakka. Including, by the way, the much maligned Board. It’s hijacking and leveraging a genuine problem for the powerless, making it ‘all about her’.
This is what is sickening about this whole ‘gender war’ farce: the gazzumping of it as a vehicle of narcissistic individuality for the already-blessed, the reduction of serious gender and abuse and sexual violence issues (for SOME ie specific, actual, case-by-case women)…to an off-the-shelf, everything-to-everyone, conveniently self-serving narrative plaything of just a few upper middle ones, some of whom have real grievances, sure…but who are in relative terms, privileged, secure, and – bluntly – anything but ‘victims’…
THAT is what is ‘taking the p*ss’, audio.
Stop being so acquiescent and biddable in this hijacking. You are not helping a single genuinely bullied – or worse – powerless woman, anywhere.
Holgate has said she believes gender was an element but not the major one, and in speaking of her bullying has not referred to it in gender terms. What do you know of her motives?
The only person who has compared Holgate to DV victims is you. She certainly hasn’t.
There’s plenty to say about the state of corporate governance and, you may recall, I condemned the bonuses on the grounds that the executives concerned were just doing their jobs. You’re right in identifying that as a malady, and there’s a whole bunch of others on which we might agree.
As I asked before, where’s the threshold between being one of the Holgates of the world or being in the “no class”? Ras was wrong and good luck to anyone who can interpret your all-too-frequent word salads.
Your outrage at Holgate is, at best, exaggerated. You’ve conveniently constructed an image of her to advance your argument while claiming to speak for people who might like a chance to tell their own stories. Who’s playing identity politics now, Jack!?
Dressed in suffragette white? Describing in hyperbolic terms being ‘bullied’ etc out of her job? Piping up in such terms six months after departing without any such expressed gripes? Citing treatment of others in Morrison’s cabinet accused of ‘much worse’ transgressions as a comparative contrast? If all this isn’t the shabbiest opportune hijacking of the topic and tenor of the moment (shading out ‘lesser’ victims, public conversation being a zero-sum game)…then I dunno what that might look like, Audio. (Did Holgate attend the public march, I wonder…?)
As for the threshold re: qualifying as an authentic – or rather, highest priority ie underclass/powerless – victim of gender abuse goes…well, being actually abused on the basis of gender and having no power, capacity of means to do much about it would be a good start. And…not having a net worth of around $30 mil would probably also score you higher. Plus, not having a battalion of Oz’s first tranche power elites on speed dial.
Mostly though: again, actually ‘being’ a meaningful victim of gendered abuse and having zero power to do a thing about it, like pretty much everyone in the casualised, nob-unionised, underclass subsistence sectors and economies Holgate’s economic class have created over the last four decades. As opposed to merely copping the normal abusive slings and arrows that come with every competitive, privileged power-position, whether that’s as a man or woman, or as a CEO, an MP, GG, PM, ABC anchor or just being very rich.
Anyway, I said I was going to shut up! You always make plenty of good, tempering points, well worth deep thought, audio, and I appreciate your brain engagement and your time. Specially since, yup, my word salads here are often a laborious chore. (You should try writing them…) Am just not paid enough to properly unsalad them though. Best rgds.