Nothing “former” about it
Late last year Media Watch criticised Liberal spin doctor Grahame Morris for misleading people about his affiliations. Although he tagged himself as a “former advisor to John Howard”, there was nothing former about it — he was still providing advice during the 2004 election campaign. He tried to avoid lying by saying he was “the former chief of staff for John Howard”, but did not disclose his close involvement in the Liberal campaign strategy.
It appears that Morris is up to his old tricks, as he was introduced on Lateline last Friday as “Grahame Morris, former staffer to John Howard and now an adviser to PriceWaterhouseCoopers”. The implication is clear: he used to work in politics, but now he’s an advisor to an accounting firm. He’s not a Liberal hack any more.
But that’s just not true.
After the ACTU started kicking Kevin Andrews’ arse on industrial relations, John Howard decided he couldn’t trust his lacklustre minister to run the campaign. He put together a team of backbenchers to babysit Andrews, and called the Liberal Party’s media strategists up for action: Andrew Robb, Ted Horton — and Grahame Morris:
Gossip spread through public relations and union offices this week when the media consultant and former adviser to Mr Howard, Graeme Morris, declined to discuss the industrial changes on ABC Radio due to a conflict of interest.
Yesterday Mr Morris confirmed that his firm, Jackson Wells Morris, had begun advising the Government on the issue on Thursday, and would be working closely with the taskforce.
Morris was right about his conflict of interest in July, but it hasn’t gone away. The Lateline debate didn’t touch on industrial relations, so there’s no problem with Morris participating — as long as he’s open about his status as an advisor to the Howard Government.
There’s nothing “former” about it.
Update: Responding to Media Watch last year, Morris said it was absurd that he should “announce who I have talked to over the last few months… not just who pays me.” Perhaps — but this time that excuse isn’t available to him.
Aha! Thanks for clarifying this for me. PWC’s press release on Morris (http://www.pwc.com/extweb/ncpressrelease.nsf/docid/01328A728862461ECA2570210018C177) and their plans for government engagement makes for some interesting reading. Is it appropriate for the `independent’ body that `independently’ gives the government data on its policies to a) be so closely aligned to the government or b) be advised by the same person who previously advised the government on exactly how to approach bodies like, say, PWC?
Gotta love Media Watch. Mind you, I was less than impressed with Foreign Correspondent’s story last night on Northern Ireland – the whole story was extemely biased towards a Protestant slant. Did you see it?
The Foreign Corro website has today been flooded with complaints, so it is as least a slight relief to know I wasn’t the only viewer fuming at the TV for the lack of balance in the story.
I certainly don’t doubt there is an element of truth to the ‘IRA Inc.’ story about levels of corruption within the IRA. However, why the same questions weren’t being asked of ultra Loyalist organisations & the Orange Army is a disgrace. Moreover, the IRA interviewees were dehumanised; in comparison the journo beds down with the protestant loyalists she interviewed – going on cosy car trips together, visiting graves of their lost rellies interviewing them in the comforts of their home.
I think the ABC owes an apology or a committment to run a follow up story which either provides the perspective from the republicans in Northern Ireland, or does a similar ‘exposee,’ into the equally dubious activities of loyalist organisations.