Apart from their compelling, enraging and inspiring speeches at the National Press Club yesterday, Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins have found another way to dominate political debate.
Last week Higgins released a profoundly embarrassing text from Barnaby Joyce savaging the prime minister, after Joyce had denounced the unknown author of another text criticising Scott Morrison. Yesterday Tame revealed an official from a government body — almost certainly the National Australia Day Council — had warned her last year about speaking critically of Morrison.
In both cases, Morrison’s response was pantomime. Joyce was required to perform a humiliating apology and resignation offer — as if the leadership of the Nationals is Morrison’s to give and take — and Morrison generously publicly forgave him in a piece of theatre crafted with News Corp publications in mind.
The response to Tame was for Morrison to claim he knew nothing and for the government to set up an inquiry.
Inquiries are the accountability theatre of the Morrison government — carefully structured, ritualistic, almost kabuki-like set-pieces that always play out the same way at excruciating length, and in which literally nothing ever happens. Nothing is intended to happen — their goal is to prevent action, not enable it.
Whether it’s the identities of those who knew about the rape of Higgins, or who backgrounded against her partner, or allegations of violence against Alan Tudge, or the “taskforce” to examine aged care deaths, or the investigation of the dodgy sale of land to a Coalition donor, or, now, to find out who rang Tame, the government is always inquiring, and never finding anything out.
That goes hand-in-glove with the fact that Scott Morrison is the most transparency-averse PM in history — a man with a history, dating back to the moment he was sworn in as minister, of doing anything he can and using any excuses he can find to avoid accountability and transparency. A man who has extended the confection of “on-water matters” to everything in government, proffering legal fictions and nonsensical justifications in an attempt to block media scrutiny, freedom of information laws, Senate committee scrutiny, legal basics like open justice, and the work of independent agencies.
Not that all information is kept hidden — instead it is deployed in the interests of the government, and of individuals within it. Morrison knows this well — he was a serial leaker to the media when treasurer, according to Malcolm Turnbull. There were no “on-tax matters” when Morrison was at Treasury; quite the opposite.
Now Morrison finds himself the target of leaking, with a disgruntled cabinet minister leaking an exchange about Morrison to Ten’s Peter van Onselen.
But this is standard stuff — members of a ruling group frequently end up leaking against each other, pursuing their own personal agendas with the help of journalists. However damaging to the government or prime minister of the day, they remain authorised leaks, because they serve the interests of someone powerful.
What Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins have done is make unauthorised leaks — leaks that serve the interests of no one in power, but instead expose the system of power to scrutiny. As Tame pointed out in response to the government’s announced “inquiry”, it merely perpetuates the existing system and culture, a piece of accountability theatre serving the powerful. For that matter, Tame’s entire analysis of embedded structures of abuse that she outlined yesterday is far more acute and insightful than most of what the media provides on the subject.
Unauthorised leaks scare governments. They create uncertainty — who will be next? what will be revealed? — and force them to change the way they operate to limit the internal distribution of information (what Julian Assange christened the “secrecy tax”). Careful political planning and election preparations can be thrown completely off course.
If they come from within the public service they can be investigated and prosecuted. If they come from a rogue member of a political party they can be bought off. But if they come from outside the political system, there’s very little that can be done.
The more unauthorised leaks, the more Scott Morrison’s code of omerta is breached, the more we’ll see how power really operates. All the inquiries in the world won’t stop it.
Good article. The Morrison Gang’s retention of government information so it can be concealed or leaked as required for its advantage mirrors its use of public money for rorts and electoral bribes. In both cases the gang steals something that belongs to the Australian public and uses it illegitimately for party benefit.
Easy to see why the Libs are petrified of an ICAC.Would need to build a new prison in Canberra .Could be named after one of the current lot of rorters. Maybe a hyphenated name even, with wings named after the main rorters
Two downvotes only.Better sign up some more members Jack with the ratio against 40 to 1 in favor of your opinion I think the people have spoken
I watched both speeches yesterday and found them to have such clarity with the straight talking which has been muffled by politics and media for far too long. The challenge to power was so incisive it could only come from those who have experienced the abuse of power so intensely, and who can so clearly see the strategies used by those who use power to dominate rather than to enable. The massaging, the secrecy, the fear and self blame created in the victim, the lies, the hypocritical and intentional appearance of nobility and right he promotes to those who see him on the outside – all strategies used.by the perpetrator is all of the same need and action to have power and control over the other. These traits are recognisable in the political scene, in workplaces and wherever there is the one who dominates and makes the other very fearful. Both Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins have experienced this deeply, as have most women and males who are less powerful. It was all very clear and for those who have experienced, know and understand this, the strategies will be so obvious for ever more.
Grace Tame is forthright, honest and utterly fearless. She’s everything the Prime Minister isn’t.
If the PM survives to lead the Libs to the election I would like to see Grace unseat him in his electorate or alternatively create a suffragette style party to stand Senate candidates in all states and give women a real say in Canberra
And then there’s the off-Broadway (Shibuya?) enquiries.
Like “NSW Police Commissioner” Mick Fuller’s – one-time Morrison next door neighbour, mate cum garbo and aspiring Hughes Liberal candidate.
When he had his mob (dressed as police) “enquire” into clearing Angus Taylor of having anything to do with that fraudulent “letter” that “fell from the heavens(?)” over from Taylor’s office to be used to attempt to discredit Clover Moore’s Sydney City Council green credentials/travel expenses? …. Without interviewing Taylor or Moore?
“Job Done! Kyū!”
Expect a lot more leaks from a terminal govt. Every man for himself in a sinking ship.
Not ‘women and children first’? Oh dear. And what about the rats? Will nobody think of the rats?
Nah, they cost too much due to Scummo’s perfidy & price gouging.
‘whether it’s the identities of those who knew about the rape of Higgins, or who backgrounded against her partner…’
So Crikey scribes have now dispensed with the word ‘alleged’ before referencing Higgins’ case, which is set down for hearing in June this year.
Hope BK, or anyone else so blindly ignorant of due process, is never empanelled on a jury.
Trying to keep up with the mob, being the leaders, is very exhausting.
Apparently, sub judice is sooo last millennium.
Yep. Can’t anymore.
In what sense is the alleged rape ‘sub judice’?
Google is your friend.
The term sub judice, literally “under a judge”, means that a matter is due for, or is under, trial.
The matter is going for an initial hearing.
No, it’s the actual trial, due to start on 6 June, and expected to run for 3-4 weeks.
Alas there’s growing legal discussion suggesting a chance it might get stayed, maybe even permanently. Even as a lay person I can understand the risk that any ‘guilty’ verdict (even under a judge-only trial) might not survive a High Court challenge now. Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer is certainly publicly angry about the impact of Parliament’s at least arguably ‘defacto-guilty’ noises of late, and that’s leaving aside the spectacularly prejudicial year-long media storm many of us have been objecting to. So I imagine the DPP will be grappling with its implications, too. Prejudice elements (and ruling) aside, any (hypothetical for now!) High Court appeal’s commentary on Separation of Powers issues at least would likely be lively reading, you’d think.
Anyway, for now we’ll all have to assume a four month + wait to find out. But it is Lehrmann’s trial proper that’s scheduled for 6 June, not an initial hearing.
There’s an outside chance that a ‘permanent stay’ will be applied for and granted. Morrison’s office has recently come out with a hastily prepared statement along the lines of ‘the apology was by no means a reflection on matters before a court’.
Australia is a party to the UN Human Rights Committee, which clearly states that ‘public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial by making statements affirming the guilt of the accused, and the media should avoid news coverage undermining the presumption of innocence’
Quite a bit more to play out in this sorry saga….
The last five years or so has just seen a truly dizzying abandonment of all legal propriety/sanity in the public sphere. Would have to google (too net-buggered) but reckon I could vaguely back-project its origins to an ABC Lateline interview Emma Alberici (think?) did with Peter Fox, re: Hunter Valley/police ‘pedo ring’ conspiracy claims or some such…that were gobbled up hook line and sinker by pretty much everyone, and kind of triggered a whole moral panic/snowball climate…a crazed extrajudicial mash-up of Weinstein, Gillard’s speech, Pell, Walkleys, Rush, Inside Canberra, Porter, etc etc….basically the mainstream press has since managed to turn itself into a hard copy version of the Drudge Report. Subsequently Fox was I recall found by the NSW RC to be a vexatious and unreliable or similar…think…ancient history.
Anyway It’s been a legal catastrophe, for us all….and yep Droppy…with a long long long way to play out. Lots of defo lawyers surveying the crystallising wreckage very, very hungrily by now, I very glumly suspect…
chrs and keep fighting the good fight man
Like the krazy kop the Caterwauling Catamite boosted for far too many years, forgotten the name…Priest I think..?
Of course. Naturally. Predictably.
Despair, Epi.
***
Brittany Higgins’ accused to seek trial delay after PM apology
Ronald Mizen and Hannah Wootton AFR
Feb 11, 2022 – 8.22pm
Prime Minister’s Scott Morrison’s apology to Brittany Higgins in Parliament this week could contribute to an indefinite delay to her alleged rapist’s criminal trial slated to be heard in the ACT Supreme Court in June.
Lawyers for the man accused of raping Ms Higgins said the comments were “extraordinarily prejudicial” to their client, Bruce Lehrmann, and that they would “be seeking a stay” on the criminal proceedings.
“The Prime Minister has mocked the rule of the law and the fundamental presumption of innocence upon which our criminal justice system is premised,” solicitor Warwick Korn told AFR Weekend.
Mr Lehrmann is facing a charge of sexual intercourse without consent for the alleged assault in the Parliament House office of the former defence industry minister Linda Reynolds in the early hours of 23 March 2019. He denies the allegations and has indicated a plea of not guilty.
But a successful stay application could see the trial delayed or aborted indefinitely. The High Court has recognised very extreme cases of adverse pre-trial publicity could justify a stay of a prosecution. Mr Korn did not indicate whether the request would be for a permanent end to the proceedings, or only temporary. A temporary stay may be granted until such a time when the memory of the events pass.
The issue of adverse pre-trial publicity is particularly pertinent in the ACT where the charge laid cannot be heard in a judge alone trial, but instead must be heard before a jury.
Lisa Parker, a University of South Australia criminal law lecturer, said Mr Morrison’s apology to Ms Higgins in Parliament added more material to a series of incidents that would make finding objective jurors difficult.
“It’s the totality of everything on this, the media and social media [coverage] which seemed to reach a peak with this apology,” Ms Parker said.
But the court would also need to consider the “significant public interest in trialling an alleged sexual assault that happened at Parliament House” before deciding on the best course of action.
**
‘It’s the totality of everything…’’
Well done, #MeToo cult groupies. Well done, opportunistic pollies and partisan agenda pushers. Well done, contemptible Fourth Estate. (Special shout-out to the peak body, the National Press Club! Onya Laura & Grrrl Gang!)
And well done, anonymous online lynch mob.
Together – I wearily predict, anyway – you’ll all have totally f**ked up any chance whatsoever of any justice for anyone at all, in this ruinously farcical, recklessly juvenile episode.
You’ll all have also – I wearily fear, anyway – managed to make things worse for current and future victims of sexual crime. Not better. Worse.
Do you understand why we have legal principles, processes and rights yet?
Do you understand why trial-by-media is so sh*t yet?
Do you, mob? Not yet? OK, fair enough. Long way to play out yet, I guess.
G’warn then. Keep screeching, mob. See how justice works out for Brittany & Bruce in the end…ffs.
Despair, Epi. Warmest rgds & chrs all.
A different perspective, although one I have severe reservations about, is the US’s take on freedom of the press.
Given how difficult it is for someone to even get charged-let alone convicted-of rape in this Country, the fact this individual was charged is pretty damning….especially when we consider the lengths Moronscum and Co went to in order to destroy evidence and allow the alleged rapist to initially flee the Country. None of which are the actions of INNOCENT people.
Why is the cleansing of a possible crime scene not being treated as a crime . Who gave the order and why ? Could this be part of an attempt to Teflon coat someone who knows nothing, sees nothing, and never lies?
Perhaps because no allegation of crime was laid before police for two years?
Morning after syndrome is dodgy enough but… several hundred later?
Yes, proving mens rea might be tricky. On the other hand, although the allegation only reached the police after all that time, it is quite possible that some of those in the minister’s office the day after the alleged incident had more than a slight suspicion something untoward had occurred. Their enthusiasm for cleaning up so very thoroughly and immediately with no further questions is curious.
The long interval between the alleged crime and its reporting can be explained in various ways and some of the more probable do nothing to undermine the allegation.
This stuff gets normalised so easily and deeply and unthinkingly, and yet its implications for the truly powerless and vulnerable are profoundly frightening and far-reaching. Add the general lynch mob climate to concrete but ill-thought and still deeply problematic legislation being spooked/railroaded into being – in areas like consent, victim impact procedural cross-examination limitations and sentencing – and we risk creating a truly toxic and illiberal cocktail for injustice for our kids, men and women, future accused and accusers alike.
Not, as ever, if you are wealthy and powerful. As ever, the wealthy and powerful will generally be fine. For the rest of us. The rule of law, expressed in and via our democratically-legislated framework of laws, is all we have.
Bernard isn’t some nasty anonymous internet troll, He’s an intelligent, experienced and decent APS and Gallery media professional. He should know better. All our senior Gallery elders…should know better; that this trial-by-media habit is becoming really dangerous. I despair. And not because I’m a sad old misogynist rape apologist. Please at least think hard about the path you’re carelessly helping us down, Peter Fray & Co.
Thank you for the space and indulgence, Crikey. I appreciate it, very much. Chrs.
‘Bernard (is) an intelligent, experienced and decent APS and Gallery media professional’.
Sorry Jack, but any journalist who wilfully disregards one of the foundations of our legal system, namely the presumption of innocence, cannot be seen to be either intelligent or decent.
JR tends to the ‘good form’ club manners – not to call another a poltroon until it is unavoidable.
Scotty would have served himself better if he had made an unreserved apology to Higgins in 2019. Hopefully Tame and Higgin’s NPC speeches are the nail in the coffin for the Coalition. The female vote for the LNP continues to fall.
I hope the “voices of ” movement grows into a landslide and sweeps the current government into a phone box as in W.A . Their views on the gender imbalance alone should be enough. Only a coal miner led miracle delivering preferences could keep this lot in power
I don’t think she made it up. I don’t think there is any doubt she WAS raped, technically the only thing ALLEGED is whether the person charged is the one who raped her, and that is what is to be determined in court.
That is a very old cartoon – one jurist saying to another, “I don’t listen to the evidence, I make up my own mind“.
Rather similar to the FUX network disclaimer.
The rape is not alleged, only the perpetrator is alleged…reckon BK is on very safe ground
Higgins’ claim that she was raped is an allegation and remains so until the defendant is tried and either convicted or found not guilty in a court of law. BK is just another in a long line of lazy, partisan ‘journalists’ that are either wilfully ignorant regarding the concept of the presumption of innocence or are confident in their ability to assert guilt without pushback.
Journalists asserting ‘guilt’ prior to the outcome of a trial is exceptionally reckless. Did BK learn nothing from the Pell case?
Yep, that’s the way I read it. I think there are options for requesting a ‘Judge Only’ trial (on the basis of adverse publicity detrimental to the defendant) but from memory this option is not available in the ACT, which is where the case is listed.
Pell? He just had to get the appeal into a high enough court to be filled with his “peers”. The consequences of money and power.
And my understanding of the law is not guilty is not the same as innocent. Any legal experts give me some advice?
Scotland has the option of “Not Proven” due to the french/roman propensity but that does not exist in any other Anglosphere jurisprudence.
A court trying a criminal case has no interest or concern with ‘innocent’. The only findings available (outside Scotland) are guilty or not guilty, because it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt. It either succeeds or fails in doing that. That is the entire purpose of the trial. Guilty means the prosecution crossed the line of proven beyond reasonable doubt, not guilty means it did not get over the line. Nobody is required to prove innocence and nobody tries. The is no verdict of ‘innocent’.
Then it all goes to hell because anyone found not guilty will, very reasonably, expect to be regarded as innocent, and that is what is supposed to happen, but very often the public will not be so respectful of the legal convention.
Scotland, for no good reason, has a third verdict of ‘not proven’ which falls between guilty and not guilty. It is therefore entirely redundant because the plain meaning is the same as not guilty, but juries use it when they could not persuade themselves to say guilty and yet wanted to leave the defendant under suspicion. This is immensely unsatisfactory given the fundamental reason for any proceeding such as a trial or inquest is to get a clear authoritative decision so that everyone involved can move on.
All the above relates to common-law jurisdictions rather than European Napoleonic code systems.
Just to emphasise the difference between British accusatorial & European Napoleonic code inquisitorial systems.
In British law (most, if not all, of the anglosphere) the obligation is on the accuser (usually, but not necessarily, the State) to prove the charge.
There is no obligation nor requirement for the accused to prove their innocence.
The Napoleonic code is said to be inquisitorial in that the magistrate seeks the truth of a matter.
This requires the accused to participate, and otherwise prove, their innocence.
It is not, strictly, guilty until proved otherwise but that is the effect.
The major difference between Britain – with Common Law as the basis of jurisprudence the individual is the sole source of legitimacy.
Europe, due to the constant tumult of its chequered history, deems the State supreme and the citroyen a mere appendage.
However, I specified criminal law because the British, or Anglo-Saxon, or common-law jurisdictions do not operate exclusively in an adversarial manner. The inquests of Coroners Courts inquests and judicial inquiries in general are of course inquisitorial.
It is curious that despite endless arguments between the proponents of the adversarial and inquisitorial systems trying to prove the superiority of one over the other for operation of the criminal law, in practice it hard to find any difference. Whichever is used, the quality of the results is far more influenced by whether the system is run competently with adequate resources by an independent judiciary acting in good faith.
Excellent point re Coroner & judicial sittings.
Thank you for clearing that up
Brittany Higgins was highly intoxicated on an unknown substance and thus legally unable to consent to anything.
Her condition was witnessed by a female security guard and the security guard’s instructions from her male superior were to ensure that BH was breathing and organize a steam clean of Linda Reynold’s lounge after she left, Sunday morning.
Depressing that it is necessary to repeat, yet again.
Seriously, what is it with the Too Often Spotted Lesser Cognitive Process, a clearly endangered species?