A champagne socialist reflects on Western culture and the Universe... and whilst gazing at his navel, he comes up with a lot of useless lint. It is the fruits of this navel-gazing that form the substance of this blog.
A close friend of mine who worked the halls of Canberra’s Press Gallery has often told me of the ways in which Howard has prevented the Australian people from knowing about the mistakes he has made, far more so than any of his predecessors. Much of this has gone unreported (perhaps because a fair portion of today’s gallery are Liberal voters). I asked Kezzia to write an article for this blog about her insight into John Howard.

BY KEZZIA


Let me begin with a disclaimer: I’m not and never have been a member of any political party. I also consider myself a “swinging” voter and have voted for almost all political parties at different times, including Liberal, depending on their policies.

That said, I have to admit to feeling a great anger and intense dislike of John Howard, based on personal experience of the man. I have lived in his electorate and at a later date, worked as a political journalist at Parliament House in Canberra for about 10 years. I also worked in the public service for the Howard-led Liberal Government in its first years. So I have had opportunities to see this man up “close and personal” and in a way the general population doesn’t.

There are many reasons for such strong feelings of animosity towards this man. The dislike started during the earlier years of leadership of the Opposition. But perhaps the real despair began during the election campaign that saw him elected PM. That election campaign was a watershed for journalists. In the Hawke years, campaigns were convivial affairs where journos got to mingle with the Hawke camp, where you got inside information about policies and direction. Information was very forthcoming, Hawke’s itinerary was handed out well in advance: you could prepare and plan your coverage having been informed and well-prepared.

Howard changed that. He ran his election campaign so that journos didn’t know from one day to the next where he was likely to be. There was no itinerary: just a five-minute notice to get on a bus “if you wanted to go with JH”. Often, that was as bus to anywhere, a mystery destination; you just weren’t told where it was going to, what to expect at the end of the ride. How could you prepare? More importantly, how could you ask informed questions? That was to Howard’s benefit.

The other tactic used throughout that election campaign was to make sure journalists didn’t receive policy information until five minutes before a “door stop”. So here’s a many-paged document you don’t have time to read and a few minutes before you have to ask questions — certainly not intelligent questions because you know virtually nothing about what’s in the document. Again, this was to Howard’s advantage: no preparation for journos meant no difficult or searching questions would result. But at what expense for the general population: they get little information and remain uninformed.

This manner of operating has continued throughout the years John Howard has been PM. Whereas when Labor was in government, you were given a number of hours to read and analyse major reports and major policy documents before you had to report on them. You were in a room for a number of hours with people to answer any questions. There were also long briefings where you could ask a multitude of questions from expert government servants. This was not the case with the Howard government. The practices of the campaign trail were continued in government: little notice, no briefings, no real opportunity to read a report etc before having to interview the PM. Press conferences became shorter so fewer questions could be asked; the PM took to hiding behind a rostrum and keeping the journalists at a distance (more opportunity to use deafness as an excuse not to hear an awkward question). Besides, John Howard doesn’t like people up close and personal.

In his electorate of Benelong years before, I watched with amusement a “meet and greet” the electorate opportunity. JH was backed up against a shop wall, his minders were circled around him. Anyone who approached was actively encouraged not to stop to meet the “great man” but to move on immediately if they weren’t one of the known party faithful. No getting up close and personal with your electorate here. John Howard was Treasurer in this period and other meetings in the electorate followed the same format: keep the general population at a distance.

Another Howard attribute that has continued is his dislike of anyone who doesn’t agree with him or who questions him: JH likes his “yes” men around him. I remember door stops where, when a journalist asked a question which questioned a statement he’d made or a policy or attitude he had, he became quite aggressive and angry. Now, no politician likes you to find out a weakness in something that has been said, or to point out that something they’ve said is not quite correct or even just to have some aspect questioned. They can try and charm their way out of it, obfuscate, and even get a bit — and some very —shirty about it. But I’ve never come across any other politician who has been as aggressive, angry or as attacking as John Howard.

As a public servant, you were not allowed to in any way question, query or, heaven forbid, point out an inconsistency or flaw in something to do with government policy. I admire those public servants who, in recent times, have publicly declared having given advice which was actively ignored, even “disappeared” because it didn’t fit in with Howard’s policy. They are indeed brave people. Most have waited until they retired to make public what actually happened or what advice was given for fear of loss of job, demotion, side-lining or even more dire consequences if they were too persistent in their desire to give honourable, genuine advice. Howard’s ire can be virulent — and he never forgets if he’s “crossed”.

I feel a great sadness that Australians continue to vote for someone who, to me, continues to act immorally, who claims to be a Christian yet displays little compassion for many others (eg with Aboriginals) or is prepared to lie (over WMD, refugees etc), and who continues to have a policy of actively keeping information from journalists and the Australian population in general so that they remain ignorant of what is really going on.

Comments
on Oct 07, 2004
Hmm, I wonder who Kezzia could be? (sarcasm)

Tell her I enjoyed her article. You should get her to write another one with some her more specific personal anecdotes. I think they're very telling about what sort of man he really is.

He's a nasty little man isn't he? Nasty, nasty nasty. Nasty. Okay, I'm done now. Eh, maybe one for the road. Nasty.