Labor: moralising to hide guilty consciences

Bill Shorten was the target of an extraordinary outburst from Minister for Employment, Michaelia Cash.

When Labor and their media camp-followers tore up the venerable tacit agreement that politicians’ private lives were off-limits, they apparently forgot that such weapons have two edges.

Or, more likely, they were banking on the facts that an activist media are only too willing to run cover for their party of choice, and that Malcolm Turnbull is utterly inept and spineless.

How else to explain Turnbull’s reticence when, even as Labor hammered the government over the dual citizenship scandal, Labor parliamentarians remained safe, despite openly holding dual citizenship? Or that during the whole, sordid Joyce saga, Labor politicians who are allegedly known to have cheated on their partners while in office were left to safely, hypocritically moralise?

It’s no wonder that some Coalition politicians are getting fed up.

[Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter] Dutton said Labor MPs did not have “great grounds to be virtuous”.

“I think there’s a frustration on the Coalition side at the moment if I’m being honest about it,” the Home Affairs Minister told 2GB radio.

“I think we’ve sat here taking a morals lecture from Bill Shorten in relation to Barnaby Joyce over the last few weeks and people know that there’s a history of problems in Bill Shorten’s personal life, Tony Burke’s personal life.”

Dutton was referring to the extraordinary outburst, on Wednesday, of Employment minister, Senator Michaelia Cash. After needling by socialist Scots windbag, Doug Cameron, Cash had what some of her colleagues described as “a brain snap”, and launched into a diatribe that she was:

“… happy to sit here and name every young woman in Mr Shorten’s office over which rumours in this place abound.”

“Do you want to start naming them and for Mr Shorten to come out and deny any of the rumours that have been circulating in this building now for many, many years? It’s a dangerous path to go down,”

Cash’s outburst was unbecoming, without doubt, and another mark against a politician with a reputation for shooting from the lip under pressure. But the stink of sanctimony from her opponents is even worse.

Labor and the ‘Love media’ ( The leftist media, those sort of “luvvie- darling” types who just slavishly follow whatever the left wing parties say) immediately launched into a predictable fit of pearl-clutching. Most egregiously self-serving is the Labor talking-point (dutifully spouted by their media apparatchiks) that Cash’s attack was “sexist”. But think of the staffers! they wailed.

This is rank nonsense, of course. Cash was determined to impugn the reputation of one person: Bill Shorten. Collateral damage be damned.

Some media luvvies waxed particularly sanctimonious in comparing the episode to the Clinton-left’s relentless smearing of Monica Lewinsky. Which is particularly sick-making, considering how long and hard the same media ran cover for Clinton. At least, until he was politically expedient.

Still, the parallels between Bill Clinton and Shorten are not hard to miss. Both are shameless political grifters: Shorten’s grubby deals with big business were exposed by the unions’ royal commission, as have reports regarding the free travel he accepted from environmental activists. Both cheated on their wives. Both were accused of rape.

Copping moralising lectures from such people would be enough to make anyone snap.

Mr Dutton’s comments appear to refer to the failed marriages of Mr Shorten and Mr Burke.

Or perhaps more.

In 2012, Piers Akerman published a column, referring to bitchy snippet[s] doing the rounds that claims a federal minister has fathered an illegitimate child by a staff member. Akerman never named the politician concerned and stated that he believed his denials.

Nonetheless, two days later, Bill Shorten ran to the papers to “[speak] out about the unspecified rumours”. He also called in the lawyers.

You know, my mother had many wise sayings, and one of her best was that a guilty conscience needs no accusing.

Peter Dutton is right:

“… to be lectured by the Labor Party really sticks in the craw.”

The Sydney Morning Herald


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

Who is Lushington D. Brady?

Well, a pseudonym. Obviously.

But the name Lushington Dalrymple Brady has been chosen carefully. Not only for the sum of its overall mien of seedy gentility, reminiscent perhaps of a slightly disreputable gentlemen of letters, but also for its parts, each of which borrows from the name of a Vandemonian of more-or-less fame (or notoriety) who represents some admirable quality which will hopefully animate the persona of Lushington D. Brady.

To read my previous articles click on my name in blue.