Lie to me
Earlier last month Victorian Minister for Public Transport, Lynne Kosky, locked up for fifty years all the documents surrounding the construction of Southern Cross train station. This month, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd uttered ‘shit-storm’ in a debate on the economic crisis, and political Lazarus, Pauline Hanson, made headlines again when thirty-year old erotic photos – alleged to be of Hanson – were leaked to the media.
Which of these stories earned virtually no press?
There are no prizes for correctly guessing the first one. While newspapers and news programs crawled over themselves for the Rudd and Hanson stories, reports on this latest attempt by Kosky to prevent anyone from admiring her have been mysteriously lacking.
Kosky, who is known for, among other things, her unmatched skills in achieving nothing on time (or on budget), has clearly dipped into George W. Bush’s Playbook in deciding to bar anyone from examining the circumstances surrounding the billion dollar redevelopment of Southern Cross station. The official figure is, admittedly, $700million – which is astronomical in its own right – but the cover-up suggests a significantly higher figure.
Add to this the billion-dollar cost of the myki-card debacle, the largely ineffective $800million regional Fast Rail project, and one begins to wonder whether this Labor government is not just enchanted by Bush’s techniques, but perhaps Bernie Madoff’s as well.
Whatever her reasons are, she’s afraid of anyone learning the truth before 2058.
Another example of agenda trumping righteousness involves the Obama Administration’s breathtaking endorsement of Bush’s State Secrets policy. In this specific instance, a number of litigants – tortured after being mistakenly suspected of terrorism – are endeavouring to have their cases of extraordinary rendition heard in American courts.
Given a chance to prove that change really has come to Washington, the Department of Justice instead announced that they agree with the previous government; that these cases – already well documented – carry information sensitive to National Security, and therefore they will not be heard. To be clear, this doesn’t mean certain pieces of evidence should be deemed inadmissible (as was the limitation before Dubya came along), but that all cases will not be examined, literally placing the Administration and its intelligence agencies beyond investigation, and above the law.
After voting precisely the opposite way in Senate hearings in previous years, what has caused this about-face? Barack Obama, an eloquent and inspirational leader, who has spoken at length about social justice issues, and who even presided over the Harvard Law Review, is now behaving like, well, Dick Cheney.
Indeed, capricious actions like these achieve naught but bewilderment in the minds of the people. Thanks to a largely profit-driven media that cares more for selling products than telling truths, however, elected officials like the embattled Kosky and the exalted Obama can, after minor scrutiny and criticism, continue their jobs as though they had said nothing at all. The bewilderment gives way to acceptance; to indifference.
Is there rationale behind these political brain explosions?
For Obama, it is difficult to imagine his situation as anything even approaching a conundrum. He is, after all, a student of law. Habeas Corpus should mean something to him, even if it didn’t to his predecessor.
Kosky is doing herself and the last vestiges of her popularity no favours at all. Her sheer confidence in her ability to get away with it would be almost admirable, were it not so disgusting, and (given the lack of inquiry) justified.
Still, this says nothing of their internal transformation, the moment, or the catalyst that drives an otherwise rational person headlong into lawlessness or immorality. The argument that one must tow the party line – that the group is more than the individual – will elicit begrudging acceptance in casual discourse, but in reality shouldn’t hold weight, especially in regards to a cabinet minister or head of state. In a manner of speaking, they are the party line.
A fervent belief in one’s cause will often impede sound judgment, but for what cause will an infrastructure report be locked up for half a century?
Without knowing the inner workings of government, it is understandably ambitious to merely glance inside and receive answers. It is not unreasonable to expect that with the task of holding a public office comes intense pressure and scrutiny. Is it so demanding a request, however, that our leaders behave in a manner befitting their title? Exactly how difficult is it to obey law?
Then again, perhaps we shouldn’t examine the person, but the job description. Save ourselves the surprise and incredulity by looking upon our politicians as a bear to a honeypot, or a leech to a vein. As Thomas Jefferson once put it, “Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.”