How should we remember Christine Holgate’s time at Australia Post?

Gone but not forgotten, the departure of Christine Holgate as AusPost CEO keeps smouldering in the headlines but now threatens to vanish at last. That she was humiliated by the PM and bullied by the Australia Post Chairman Lucio di Bartolomeo is now a certainty. Whether $1 million in compensation plus $100,000 in court costs all funded by the the Commonwealth owned company is just compensation for the emotional distress of being “driven to despair” as her opening statement relays is a matter that has been decided by the courts.

In past months, the Coalition have been facing a steady reckoning at the hands of female voters. The PM’s approval rating is sliding, due in part to his party’s treatment of women. Such consequences are long overdue. That Christian Porter has been appointed Leader of the Lower House, after allegations of rape, has signaled to many that the LNP intend to weather this storm rather than amend their behaviour, beyond the next media cycle at least. Another high ranking party member is Barnaby Joyce with his return to the Deputy Prime Ministership after an extramarital affair with Vikki Campion in 2018. While certainly in a different class to the allegations against Porter, Joyce has demonstrated that storms of this sort can be weathered without lasting harm to the political careers of the men involved.

It is tempting in such a context to point to Scomo’s treatment of Holgate as simply more of the same - a bully boy’s club in which women are expendable the moment they become inconvenient while the men in power are shielded from the long-term consequences of their actions. While the Coalition’s mistreatment of women is clearly structural, it is also certain from events that Holgate is far more a member of that special class of Australian politician, an operator willing to deploy the language of victimhood at her convenience while having happily and without any public regret dispensing with the dignity of those less fortunate at her own political gain.

Amongst the growing chorus is Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and Jennifer Wilson of The Independent. The broader thrust is to sanctify Holgate and her service to the Australian people. Here she was a highly capable CEO that through a small miscalculation was unfairly dismissed, bullied out of the job by the misogynist chairman and a loudmouth PM. She was courageous enough to stand up for herself - a heroism borne not from self-interest but as a representative for all those bullied. It’s enough sound and fury so as to drown out the immediate facts of the events leading to her departure which if taken in isolation to this maelstrom cast Holgate in an entirely different light.

Thankfully unshakable is the reason Holgate was forced to resign in the first place. $20,000 of company money spent on Cartier watches by Holgate were gifted to senior managers after they completed a major deal caused a public stir. Context is important here - this was April 2020 when COVID had caused lines outside Centrelink around the block. The thought that public servants were sporting luxury watches bought for by the taxpayer owned company struck many as tone deaf to the moment.

Let’s face it - politicians and public officials misusing taxpayers’ money for their own private junkets barely rates a mention these days. Perhaps it was the items - designer watches - that caused the rub. Had it Holgate taken the same senior managers on a “work trip” to the same value it would have barely rated a mention.

Yet another event that has been quickly forgotten is far more illuminating about Holgate’s character. It demonstrates how power, privilege and political expediency operate in this country at the cost of country’s most marginalised. I am referring to the matter of Holgate personally facilitating the far-right political trolling of those most vulnerable Australians at particularly vulnerable moment. This is the strange tale of the delivery of One Nation stubby holders to the residents of Melbourne public housing…

Some background… #

During Melbourne’s high lockdown in July 2020 there was a suspected outbreak of COVID in a public housing tower in North Melbourne. The towers were surrounded by police. Access to and from them were severely restricted. Commentators were quick to point out the poor optics: many had immigrated from countries where a police presence would have signalled intimidation or the imminent threat of violence. It was not a good look.

As One Nation senator Pauline Hanson is prone to do, she waded into a conversation that did not really concern her. To her, these were immigrants sponging off the tax-payer. Hanson also included some darker overtones about the residents being more used to dirt and disease so thus did not deserve any special consideration. On Nine’s Today when the host said many of the residents had “not eaten a meal in days” Hanson called them “alcoholics” and “drug addicts”. This racist comment blew up and Hanson was kicked off the channel.

In a bizarre coda, Hanson’s party ordered 114 (or 104 depending on who you ask) One Nation stubby holders with an attached card saying “No Hard Feelings” be delivered to the residents of the same towers. We can speculate on the motivation of this delivery, although it is quite easy to eliminate genuine repentance on the part of One Nation for their leader’s comments, despite what was written on the card itself. It seems more likely that One Nation were trying their hand at some Trumpian trolling. In this case, a one finger salute raised to first generation immigrants and refugees, that Hanson has built a political career demonising. These sorts of provocative moves have invigorated the populist bases of parties around the world - double down for the spiteful laugh. It’s the demonisation then humiliation that gets the votes.

There are a few aspects to support the theory that the apology was disingenuous. Firstly, the patriotic belch that “We are Proud to Have this Product Made in Australia” is one sign. More telling though is gifting a stubby holder to those Hanson a few days before called “alcoholics”. Up there (and not pictured above) is Hanson’s face on the stubby holder under which is the caption “I’ve got the guts to say what you’re all thinking” This is hardly the statement of the chastised polly coming to terms with a lifetime of racist advocacy. It is also unlikely that the 3000 residents of the tower would think it took guts for Hanson to call them “drug addicts” and “alcoholics” on national television while they were surrounded by police.

The plain-packaged 114 (or 104) stubby holders were intercepted by City of Melbourne staff who opened one. Upon inspection they, quite rightly, feared that such a provocative move might upset the tower’s inhabitants and prevented delivery. This staff member should be commended for this decision, for it was this interception that prevented the tower’s residents being stripped of their dignity for political gain. And so the packages remained until Australia Post’s General Counsel Nick McDonald wrote a letter that threatened to involve the police if they were not promptly delivered.

What does any of this have to do with Holgate? #

Holgate comes into this by personally instructing her subordinate McDonald to send that demand to the City of Melbourne. As this Guardian article shows leaked emails prove that McDonald was communicating both with One Nation while threatening the City of Melbourne unless they deliver the packages.

This email instructing McDonald to send the letter implies that Holgate was aware of the demand’s contents and perhaps even the two had drafted it together. It also requests that McDonald should inform Holgate if he hears from One Nation. This clearly shows Holgate driving events and pushing for delivery.

After the event blew up (before quickly fizzing out), as this article shows “An Australia Post spokesman said Ms Holgate had not spoken to Senator Hanson or One Nation directly prior to authorising the email”. This is a truly Morrison calibre weasel. Holgate’s defence is distance: she was never quite in the room when the threats of involving police or the deals were being made. Instead she deploys degrees of separation - yet the email shows just how closely she was keeping tabs on the proceedings.

In fact distilling the pieces written about the story published last year, certain facts emerge that reveal Holgate’s defence is based purely on a technicality. Certain key aspects of the event become apparent, including:

• Holgate knew about the contents of these packages.
• She drove her subordinate McDonald to push their delivery and thoroughly endorsed his actions to involve the police.
• If there was any doubt, she was aware as to why the packages were intercepted by the City of Melbourne staff - that the act of trolling residents of public housing under lockdown might not be great for them.
• That One Nation, and Pauline Hanson were in contact with Australia Post, the latter were bending over backwards to ensure delivery.

Cui Bono #

There is always the defence of Australia Post being a public service operating in the interest of facilitating the democratic process. Akin to the “free speech” argument, that Australia Post are untethered to any political party and so must must be politically agnostic about the mail they deliver. Taken to its logical conclusion all political parties regardless of stripe have the right to use Australia Post and AusPost have the obligation to deliver.

This comes into the matter of political mail as it is considered a “community notice” and so must by law be delivered. Independent Andrew Wilkie has been campaigning that political mail needs an opt-out for years. Through this defence Holgate would push just as hard for leaflets posted by the Greens as she did for One Nation.

There is a precedent here: Australia Post has refused to deliver goods - such as these Anti-gay pamphlets with swastikas on them in 2017. The packages sent to the North Melbourne towers were unaddressed and therefore must abide by the Unaddressed Mail Service’s Terms of Service which, according to that same Buzzfeed article, must be in accordance with “acceptable community standards of reasonableness, honesty and decency.”

There is also a clear political motive that Holgate had to ensure the delivery of these parcels. At this time, the senate had temporarily relaxed Australia Post’s service obligations. Under new obligations letters addressed to metropolitan areas were allowed to be delivered only every second day, instead of each weekday. This would allow AusPost to concentrate on parcel delivery which was vital during COVID. Australia Post had a keen interest in ensuring that this reduction in their service obligations continued beyond the temporary window. The senate was voting on whether to extend this relaxation. Holgate had campaigned to continue with the reduced service obligation with the clear incentive that it would make her job easier. One Nation were crucial in the senate at this time. Holgate was courting them to secure their vote. Through this deal, the residents of North Melbourne tower were simply collateral damage.

Courting is also not strong a word as this document on the Australia Post’s website confirms that early that month “Ms Holgate and her executive general manager Sue Davies had flown to Brisbane to give Senator Hanson a tour of the service’s Brisbane distribution centre” and it also seems to have paid dividends as this article shows that Hanson was quick to leap to Holgate’s defence: “This is a woman who saved Australia Post”

This also raises the question of Holgate’s priorities in that moment of national crisis. July 2020 was when Melbourne was in the midst of its harsh and long lockdown. Delays in mail spiked. I had ordered a book from Carlton which is about 7 kilometres away. It took 3 weeks to arrive. Australia Post struggled to keep up with the demand and used administrative staff as ersatz posties to try and cut the backlog. I could handle my book arriving late but some people were ordering essential items that were taking six weeks to arrive reluctant to leave their houses or unable to afford to buy the items again.

At this time, I asked my local postie how he was going, expecting a friendly neighbourhood greeting. Instead he ranted about being forced to work ridiculous hours to try and handle the backlog. He was expected to work weekends, he said, around “60 hours a week” That in the midst of the very service that Holgate was paid higher than any other public servant in the country to manage, which was melting down at the very moment Australians needed it most. At this time Holgate was using those most impacted by COVID for political machinations. While none of this justifies her being bullied by the Prime Minister it certainly could qualify as her tacit support and facilitation of One Nation’s bullying.

Lie down with dogs… #

In reality Holgate was willing to side with Australia’s largest far-right political parties and engage in federal politics to achieve her own ends. She was not just doing her job - as was she similarly vocal demanding that other mail be sent to the towers? I cannot find any evidence of this through the leaked emails. Similarly with outgoing mail, to ensure those in the tower had contact with the outside world.

Holgate’s machinations thus came at the cost of the dignity and the right to response leaving this marginalised group, disempowered and voiceless. We speak of the power asymmetry being the most crucial aspect of bullying. Holgate as arch-victim relies on the PM and chairman being in a more powerful position able to exert this power to bully her. One question remains then: how much of an imbalance is there between those residents in public housing towers and the highest paid public servant in the country?

That she gets to move to her new position in DHHS with a fat settlement of public money is for the courts. Yet there needs to be some reckoning as to the historical record - that she was passive and an innocent victim does not fit with the facts. At at time of institutional crisis in the public service she was managing, Holgate preferred to play political games, allying herself with the far-right rather than ensure that the mail was delivered on-time to those Australians relying on her.

And so the media moves on. These facts are inconvenient. It is much easier to adopt Holgate in the narrative of victimhood than explore the complexities surrounding her departure. I would venture that to place Holgate in the same class as the other victims of the Coalition is to do a disservice to those other victims. It provides an opportunity for those wanting to undermine the reckoning of abuse by men in power with the crack they need to question the legitimacy of the entire enterprise.

One final point that has naturally been lost in this exercise of big narratives and important people. Only one reporter has bothered to ask anyone the residents of the tower what they actually think. In this piece Steven Schubert and staff asked resident Girmay Mengesha, who, while clearly not “driven to despair” stated that the stubby holders were “salt in the wound.” It is perhaps time to consider who throughout these events had the hard feelings.