Who would want to be Australian of the Year?
It seems to be a beacon attracting anyone with an axe to grind or a grudge from your history.
Adam Goodes has and continues to receive unjust criticism on social media since his award two years ago. Even Rosie Batty has been target of public attacks, spearheaded by Mark Latham (which immediately undermines such attacks) and cheered on by over-zealous men’s rights activists whose paranoia I have discussed in another article.
The most recent recipient of the award, Lieutenant General David Morrison, has also quickly come under fire- firstly for not mentioning the suffering of returned servicemen in his Australia Day speech, as well as a number of personal attacks based on his service in the army and events that transpired under his stewardship as Chief of Army. Online petitions have accused him of negligence, cowardice and exploitation whilst calling for him to relinquish his award. More recently, Jacqui Lambie has added her voice (which in fairness has about as much credibility as Mark Latham’s) to this chorus of criticism.
Those who felt his omission of mentioning the struggles of veterans in his speech may well be upset. That is their right in a free country, but calls for him to relinquish his position within a week of accepting it are excessive and show a lack of empathy. Obviously suicide amongst veterans is a concern, as it is amongst the wider community, but it is curious that Lieutenant General Morrison be so singled out over it, while successive governments fail to prevent it in the wider community. A more productive and mature response might have been to attempt to begin a dialogue with the general in the hope that he might take on board some constructive criticism and perhaps been made into a powerful ally for veterans’ advocacy. But that approach was not taken and I can only speculate why. Instead the attacks began, beginning with the claims that the former army chief didn’t care about the welfare of his former soldiers. They were soon joined by accusations that he had managed the response to the sexual abuse scandal for maximum political benefit and even been complicit in covering up abuse.
Without doubt, Lieutenant General Morrison was controversial in the role of Chief of Army, instigating a process of institutional reform across the organisation that would have been unpopular with some elements. How much of a factor this is in the campaign against him is hard to prove, but it is hard to escape the suspicion that it is playing some role. I’m not really qualified to comment on the efficacy of these reforms or on other accusations levelled at Lieutenant General Morrison personally, because I don’t really know enough about them. Very few people can really know the truth of what briefings he received, what orders he gave and the timeline of such events, but no one has provided any concrete evidence to support the accusations that he covered up abuse. Still, there are people out there signing petitions and adding their voices to personal attacks from positions of similar ignorance to my own.
That doesn’t sit right with me. The people with no first-hand knowledge who are lazily parroting, unbalanced attacks about Lieutenant General Morrison’s actions during a challenging tenure as Chief of Army are giving little thought to the hurt their actions would be causing. And despite the outward strength he shows in the face of these public attacks, I would be surprised if the man isn’t feeling it. I may not ever be awarded anything like Australian of the Year, but I do know the pride at being awarded something that is personally significant. It would be gut-wrenching to have people making public statements that I don’t deserve it. I have written elsewhere that we often never truly appreciate the pain we cause with our words, which is why I believe people should be very careful with these types of allegations. Of course, if there is some proof that our Australian of the Year did protect sexual abusers, it would become an entirely different conversation. I am sure there are no shortage of freedom of information requests on the subject being processed as we speak, so I guess we will find out soon enough. Maybe the calls for his resignation could wait until then.
By the time you consider the newest criticisms about how much the retired general is reportedly charging for speaking engagements and other reports that he will accept a lucrative position for Deloitte as a diversity ambassador (both of which are entirely within his rights), the anti-Morrison campaign is looking a bit scattergun. Seeing someone taking such advantage of their high profile may rub us the wrong way, but it in no way reinforces the other criticisms and could be seen to undermine them, shifting focus to a totally different space.
A more general criticism aimed at the award itself has been that it is now dominated by the politically correct ’lefties’ and the social justice warriors who have high media profile, at the expense of the quiet achievers who make real differences to people’s lives. That may well be true, but this devaluation of quiet achievers in favour of those with greater media profiles just reflects our society as a whole (I will write a separate essay about that when I get some time). If you are more interested in and know more about your favourite footballers (who also do very little of actual benefit to society) than you do your government, or your local emergency workers, then you aren’t immune from this criticism yourself.
David Morrison was made Australian of the Year. He wasn’t made St David. There are obviously those who do feel let down by him and are angered by his public accolades. I’m sure there are decisions the retired general reflects on from his past that he would have done differently if he had his time again- just like every other Australian. But most of the accusations against the former Chief of Army have been accompanied with a fair bit of supposition. Before any of us that don’t know the full story choose to condemn the man and call for his resignation, perhaps we ought to wait and see if any actual evidence of his wrongdoing can be produced. Sadly, if you throw enough mud, some of it eventually sticks. It would be embarrassing if it turned out to have been thrown from a position of falsehood.
Adam Goodes has and continues to receive unjust criticism on social media since his award two years ago. Even Rosie Batty has been target of public attacks, spearheaded by Mark Latham (which immediately undermines such attacks) and cheered on by over-zealous men’s rights activists whose paranoia I have discussed in another article.
The most recent recipient of the award, Lieutenant General David Morrison, has also quickly come under fire- firstly for not mentioning the suffering of returned servicemen in his Australia Day speech, as well as a number of personal attacks based on his service in the army and events that transpired under his stewardship as Chief of Army. Online petitions have accused him of negligence, cowardice and exploitation whilst calling for him to relinquish his award. More recently, Jacqui Lambie has added her voice (which in fairness has about as much credibility as Mark Latham’s) to this chorus of criticism.
Those who felt his omission of mentioning the struggles of veterans in his speech may well be upset. That is their right in a free country, but calls for him to relinquish his position within a week of accepting it are excessive and show a lack of empathy. Obviously suicide amongst veterans is a concern, as it is amongst the wider community, but it is curious that Lieutenant General Morrison be so singled out over it, while successive governments fail to prevent it in the wider community. A more productive and mature response might have been to attempt to begin a dialogue with the general in the hope that he might take on board some constructive criticism and perhaps been made into a powerful ally for veterans’ advocacy. But that approach was not taken and I can only speculate why. Instead the attacks began, beginning with the claims that the former army chief didn’t care about the welfare of his former soldiers. They were soon joined by accusations that he had managed the response to the sexual abuse scandal for maximum political benefit and even been complicit in covering up abuse.
Without doubt, Lieutenant General Morrison was controversial in the role of Chief of Army, instigating a process of institutional reform across the organisation that would have been unpopular with some elements. How much of a factor this is in the campaign against him is hard to prove, but it is hard to escape the suspicion that it is playing some role. I’m not really qualified to comment on the efficacy of these reforms or on other accusations levelled at Lieutenant General Morrison personally, because I don’t really know enough about them. Very few people can really know the truth of what briefings he received, what orders he gave and the timeline of such events, but no one has provided any concrete evidence to support the accusations that he covered up abuse. Still, there are people out there signing petitions and adding their voices to personal attacks from positions of similar ignorance to my own.
That doesn’t sit right with me. The people with no first-hand knowledge who are lazily parroting, unbalanced attacks about Lieutenant General Morrison’s actions during a challenging tenure as Chief of Army are giving little thought to the hurt their actions would be causing. And despite the outward strength he shows in the face of these public attacks, I would be surprised if the man isn’t feeling it. I may not ever be awarded anything like Australian of the Year, but I do know the pride at being awarded something that is personally significant. It would be gut-wrenching to have people making public statements that I don’t deserve it. I have written elsewhere that we often never truly appreciate the pain we cause with our words, which is why I believe people should be very careful with these types of allegations. Of course, if there is some proof that our Australian of the Year did protect sexual abusers, it would become an entirely different conversation. I am sure there are no shortage of freedom of information requests on the subject being processed as we speak, so I guess we will find out soon enough. Maybe the calls for his resignation could wait until then.
By the time you consider the newest criticisms about how much the retired general is reportedly charging for speaking engagements and other reports that he will accept a lucrative position for Deloitte as a diversity ambassador (both of which are entirely within his rights), the anti-Morrison campaign is looking a bit scattergun. Seeing someone taking such advantage of their high profile may rub us the wrong way, but it in no way reinforces the other criticisms and could be seen to undermine them, shifting focus to a totally different space.
A more general criticism aimed at the award itself has been that it is now dominated by the politically correct ’lefties’ and the social justice warriors who have high media profile, at the expense of the quiet achievers who make real differences to people’s lives. That may well be true, but this devaluation of quiet achievers in favour of those with greater media profiles just reflects our society as a whole (I will write a separate essay about that when I get some time). If you are more interested in and know more about your favourite footballers (who also do very little of actual benefit to society) than you do your government, or your local emergency workers, then you aren’t immune from this criticism yourself.
David Morrison was made Australian of the Year. He wasn’t made St David. There are obviously those who do feel let down by him and are angered by his public accolades. I’m sure there are decisions the retired general reflects on from his past that he would have done differently if he had his time again- just like every other Australian. But most of the accusations against the former Chief of Army have been accompanied with a fair bit of supposition. Before any of us that don’t know the full story choose to condemn the man and call for his resignation, perhaps we ought to wait and see if any actual evidence of his wrongdoing can be produced. Sadly, if you throw enough mud, some of it eventually sticks. It would be embarrassing if it turned out to have been thrown from a position of falsehood.