Too late to say sorry: Morrison is the villain in Holgate affair

Those conditioned to turn this into a gender narrative should think very carefully. It does women no great favours.

Every crisis reveals something about people. The Holgate affair reveals that Labor leader Anthony Albanese and Labor MPs Kim­berley Kitching and others are ­pathetic hypocrites. They fired the starter’s gun on this debacle and now cry crocodile tears for Christine Holgate.

Australia Post chair Lucio Di Bartolomeo and his board could have been more publicly supportive of Holgate, a stellar chief executive under great stress when she became front page fodder for envious punters across the country over four Cartier watches

That said, unfortunate miscalculations were carried out by the two central people: the Prime Minister and Holgate herself.

We are learning that Morrison is a highly reactive prime minister, not a considered leader. More mid-level managerial than top job material, he is not good under pressure. Foolishly, he took the bait from Labor over the watches saga when he said during Question Time in October last year that Holgate had been instructed to stand aside, pending a review, and “If she doesn’t wish to do that, she can go.” Morrison didn’t extend the presumption of innocence or due process to Holgate in the same way he did to save Christian Porter’s career.

He could have said: “We will not tolerate the improper use of taxpayer money. If that has occurred, we will address it. There must be an inquiry into this, and there will be a proper process around that inquiry. Christine Holgate is an outstanding chief executive. She has led Australia Post during an immensely difficult period. We will bring the outcome of that inquiry to the Australian people as soon as it is finalised.”

Instead, as Australia Post’s 100 per cent shareholder, Morrison chose to be the bully. He misjudged, misfired, attacked and then retreated into hiding, refusing to release the report, or apologise for his mistake that triggered the end of Holgate’s career.

Would the Prime Minister have attacked a low-profile male CEO in the same way as he attacked a very high-profile, glamorous and forthright female CEO? We will never know.

But it doesn’t help Morrison that these questions are being asked following his mishandling over the Brittany Higgins fiasco.

What we do know is that Morrison is wedded to permanent campaigning rather than serious policy reform. Campaigning needs regular fuel loads. Front page ­material is perfect. It relies on ­continual hyper-partisanship too.

Holgate was collateral damage in Morrison’s daily political calculation to win the next election. His miscalculated attack, so out of ­proportion, shows that the close friend of hyper-partisanship is ­stupidity.

Morrison’s other major miscalculation is his wilful refusal to apologise to Holgate. He should have apologised the instant the Maddocks report commissioned by his government landed on his desk and said Holgate did no wrong. We expect our kids to say sorry when they stuff up. Then we move on. His obstinance will damage his credibility as a fair-minded and decent Christian man.

The second series of unfortunate miscalculations were made by Holgate. Her tight band of supporters may go feral that a woman — me — has not stuck to the sisterhood script built by Holgate and her many advisers, a narrative they have expertly surfed since last October. But we have far more information about this tawdry saga than we did six months ago.

Holgate’s submission to the Senate inquiry made public last week, and her appearance there this week, was a tour de force. However, rewarding executives with a Cartier watch, even in light of previous extravagance at Australia Post, was Holgate’s first error of judgment. It was compounded by the somewhat dismissive answer she gave when questioned about the matter at Senate Estimates. Punters who have never worked in the corporate world might think that anything more than a vegemite sandwich is rank extravagance and greed. But these were not fatal misjudgements. Holgate had done no wrong, and there was a clear pathway to keeping her job.

But Holgate’s next miscalculation was bigger. Contrary to advice from Australia Post board members, she refused to stand aside pending the government’s independent inquiry. This was a grave error. Her initial plan to take a few weeks leave was never practical. An inquiry takes longer. It’s a massive distraction for a CEO during Australia Post’s busiest period.

Had Holgate stood aside during the review, as James Shipton did when he was embroiled in an expenses brouhaha at ASIC, she could, once vindicated, have returned to her role as chief executive. Unlike Shipton, there were no questions about her ability to lead her organisation. She was an outstanding CEO.

Sure, Holgate had made tough decisions at Australia Post and inevitably some enemies, including, quite possibly an aggrieved ex-­employee who must have handed a few titbits of information about watches to Labor’s Kitching.

But enemies aside, Inquirer has been told by a high-ranking source at Australia Post that the board wanted Holgate to remain as CEO, and fully expected that a review would allow her to do that. As this person said, it would have been a bruising visit to the woodshed, rather than kneeling at the executioner’s block.

To her great disappointment, Holgate discovered that political relationships are entirely conditional: plenty of happy faces and pleasantries at backslapping functions — until none of that suits a minister, or a prime minister, anymore. It’s crappy and unfair. But politics is a dirty business that few of us want to join.

The final, and the worst, miscalculation by Holgate was her resignation letter to the board. That letter, made public in her submission, is both classy and gracious. It is also plain in meaning — an unconditional and immediate resignation.

Holgate’s letter to the board on November 2 would have been carefully parsed by the board’s lawyers. It’s not hard to imagine their advice: her “offer” to resign should not be read in the contractual “offer and acceptance” sense, but as “I tender my resignation”. A savvy CEO, receiving advice from many sources, including lawyers, would make a conditional resignation very clear. The offer is “without prejudice”. The offer is “conditional” on this and that. Resignations at the highest levels are tediously careful negotiations.

Holgate went in the other direction. She wrote that “my continuation as chief executive is untenable”. She said her offer to resign was “with immediate effect”. Given that her resignation is to have “immediate effect”, her words only make sense if her “offer” to resign means she is “tendering” her resignation.

“I do not seek any financial compensation,” she added. In other words, there is no exit package to negotiate, no further action required from the board.

Holgate wrote that “notwithstanding my resignation I am available to participate in (the inquiry)”. In effect, Holgate said “I’m out of here” but willing to co-operate with the inquiry.

In her last paragraph, Holgate said: “I attach a copy of an external statement which I will be releasing at 2pm, in any event.” Her resignation was to be confirmed by a public statement by her at 2pm no matter what the board might say in response.

Holgate’s letter can mean only what it plainly said: her resignation was immediate, unconditional and required no action from board. Holgate’s 2pm press statement, equally gracious, was also equally clear that she intended to resign “with immediate effect”.

There is no doubt that Holgate was under tremendous stress. Standing back from the tragic saga, she went from being the golden girl of corporate Australia at breakfast to being derided and attacked as a flashy, greedy big-spender by dinner. It was grossly unfair and ignorant.

In the eye of this frightful storm, enduring unthinkable stress, with many people no doubt offering advice, Holgate did resign — unnecessarily, but voluntarily, unconditionally and finally.

Her real problem is resigner’s remorse. Those conditioned to turn this into a gender narrative should think very carefully. It does women no great favours if women are treated as frail, emotional beings who cannot be taken at their word, no matter how plainly spoken and unconditional.

That said, while two people overreacted in this awful tale, Holgate has the greater claim to innocence. Without Morrison’s vicious mauling, she would still be running Australia Post. She didn’t deserve to be a victim of his political incompetence. But Morrison does deserve to have this episode added to the list of his leadership failings.