Win at all costs: how did we get to here?
In three short years Scott Morrison has gone from a remarkable upset victory to now being faced with what is likely a heavy defeat. Once a fresh new face the trust and authority he had attained is by all accounts greatly diminished. This last week Morrison’s whatever it takes attitude has mirrored the win at all costs mentality he has carried with him throughout his political career.
On Sunday the Australian reported they had obtained a screenshot to indicate a list of the debate questions had been leaked to Morrison’s office. Morrison who described keeping Australia together as one of his top three key values as prime minister spent the last week of the campaign trying to use Katherine Deves candidacy to create a wedge issue out of trans rights. As shadow minister he’d been accused by his colleagues of suggesting his party manipulate anti Muslim sentiment for political gain at a cabinet meeting.
Behind the scenes other senior liberals are reportedly furious that Morrison’s attempt to play wedge politics has sacrificed them. This includes his treasurer Josh Frydenberg the defeat of whom would deprive the liberal party of a leader who could continue Morrison’s economic agenda if indeed this was his priority. When asked about Covid deaths Morrison echoed internet conspiracy theories to suggest they were a statistical artefact. Repeatedly he’s broken the trust of others voters, colleagues and minority groups, in search of one goal: winning.
Morrison’s fourteen year political career is a long list of episodes that demonstrate his willingness to go further than others in order to win. Starting with his preselection in which Morrison harnessed the power of the media to launch a vicious smear campaign against rival Michael Towke. So damaging was the campaign that it led to a fifty thousand dollar out of court settlement with News Corporation (Towke says he rejected a one hundred thousand dollar settlement that required confidentiality). Political operatives working for Morrison approached the Labor party for dirt on Towke according to Labor power broker Sam Dastyari. Many political leaders played their politics hard but how many were willing to destroy another persons life just to get their seat in parliament?
As a shadow minister the member for Cooke scene of the Cronulla riots pushed colleagues to exploit anti Muslim sentiment for political gain. Although exactly what was said behind closed doors multiple liberal shadow ministers have confirmed the conversation went along these lines.
But it was as prime minister that Morrison’s lack of scruples would truly flourish. The sports/carparks/female change rooms rorts scandals is generally not well understood with many lazy attempts to claim both sides do it. The pork barreling operation was meticulously planned involving 3 different funds worth nearly one billion dollars. The spending was coordinated directly from the prime ministers office to target marginal electorates to the extent of using a colour coded spreadsheet. After going through all that detailed planning the caretaker conventions of government — intended to ensure the powers of office aren’t abused for political gain — were then broken in order to send out last minute targeting information.
The government became known for setting up sham investigations into its own scandals. The prime minister was able to protect himself from the rorts scandals but also from the robodebt backlash. This program in which the government was found to have acted illegally by the courts was started by Morrison when he was social security minister. No one could be held accountable for robodebt because the man who was most responsible occupied the highest office.
When the CEO of Australia post was criticized by the media for an incentive plan in which executives received expensive watches for closing an important deal, Morrison made a big show of standing up in parliament to demand she resign. This wouldn’t have been exceptional except that a member of the frontbench Stuart Roberts had claimed thirty eight thousand dollars for internet expenses and also been caught by the press lying on his financial disclosures. Objectively these were much more serious than what Holgate had done. Also she could have been asked to resign any number of ways but the leader wanted use the scandal as political theater creating the biggest stage possible and piously presenting himself as upholding high standards. The hypocrisy was off the charts.
The prime ministers office likely gave background information to journalists to try and smear the partner of Brittany Higgins the staffer who was allegedly raped in parliament house by another staffer who was found to be a serial abuser. Towke, Holgate, Higgins all had their reputations and lives attacked by a man who uses the media as a weapon, collateral damage in his quest for political power.
None of the above addresses directly Morrison’s performance as prime minister. The way he went from popular to on the nose in one term probably sums it up though. So how did he even become prime minister considering he’s not liked or trusted by his colleagues? The answer lies in how two other leaders flamed out before him. In the course of the Turnbull Abbot internecine wars high profile liberals like Julie Bishop and Christopher Pyne where washed out of the party perhaps exhausted by the infighting. Key Morrison lieutenants like Stuart Roberts and Angus Taylor advanced over their political corpses. The bombastic characters of Abbot and Turnbull were like bulls in a china shop charging around seemingly oblivious to the mess they could cause. Both were flawed but in a sense natural leaders with strong internal belief systems even if they lacked personal management skills which are critical for a party leader. Scott Morrison had the perfect skills to navigate the liberal party civil war. And with his media management tactics he seemed to be a good prospect electorally.
But like Tony Abbot he was an exceptionally poor national leader. While Abbot was rash seemingly having tunnel vision and ignored his colleagues Morrison’s sin was one of terminal neglect, always prioritizing political appearances over leadership and avoiding decisions lest he be blamed for any mistakes. Recently the media has tried to make a distinction between the weak Albanese and the strong Morrison to the extent of reporting that the labor leader is not an alpha male. But is never allowing yourself to be seen as in the wrong truly a sign of strength? Australia has had a long line of macho leaders beating their chests and battling the other lion for supremacy over the herd. Going back to the Hawke Keating rivalry we then had Rudd Gillard followed by Abbot Turnbull. Where there was more political stability in the early Hawke years and during Howard’s time the leader was able to form a more collegiate relationship with his party, which requires being able to listen and having empathy. I don’t agree that Anthony Albanese is weak but perhaps a new kind of leader with a different style of leadership would not be such a bad thing after all.
Authors note: This piece was originally posted on May 19 on wordpress