Schrödinger’s Gun

Probing, or disingenuous questioning?

The State of Victoria is the second most populous state in Australia. It is governed by a progressive Labor government with a conservative Liberal-National Party Coalition in Opposition. In Australia, the Liberal Party is a conservative political party, with the Nationals, who were originally named the Country Party.

Fact: On March 9, at 06:39H, Ambulance Victoria received a call stating a male had fallen from steps in a holiday house in Sorrento, and was injured. They formed the opinion that while the case was not life-threatening, it required an ambulance. The patient was the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, on his way to work when he fell.

There is a ‘joke’ that whenever someone is asked a question for which there is no answer which will not indict the respondent, it is like asking “When did you stop beating your wife?”. No answer, even a total denial of such act, will adequately absolve the person being questioned, as the seed of doubt has been already sown by the question itself.

Now any citizen has the right to demand probity of their government, and an Opposition has a duty to expose untruths, incompetence, and fraud. This is, after all, the hallmark of a vibrant and fearless Western democracy. It should not be an exercise which oversteps a moral mark by presuming answers in the negative or skewed to ‘prove’ guilt.

Three months after the Premier’s mishap, the pandemic rolls on. The Victorian Opposition decides to dredge the bottom of the barrel with a list of questions which all point to the Premier being dishonest, questions seeking a ‘smoking gun’. The fact that the answers are part of the public record makes even less sense, but the Opposition persists anyway, despite loud denouncements by public and the media after.

Ethically, one should not intrude into private grief or personal matters, or mine such events for political gain. While the Premier is a public figure, the fall which put him in hospital, and his health, are private matters, unless they impair the running of the State. They didn’t. The transition to Acting Premier Merlino was flawless and smooth, details of the Premier’s injuries were published in the name of public need-to-know and the medical staff got on with ensuring major injuries (several broken ribs and a compressed vertebra) were fixed and rehabilitation begun. That is how it should be — the public is informed and reassured, the hospital administers treatment, and the patient begins the arduous process of healing.

Summarising, the questions attempted to claim wrongdoing by the mere use of the house where the Premier was staying, insinuating the owner of the house and those within were present for nefarious motives. The query about if an ambulance was called, and when and from where, is easily answered and reported by the media. It was later clarified further by Ambulance Victoria themselves, having sought permission from the Premier to release personal health information. Finally, by asking about the involvement of the Police, the implication is that there were misdeeds afoot, either to or by the Premier. It is a question designed to mislead by such implication.

While the whole issue is possibly an attempt by the Opposition to garner attention, the project has backfired. The three main protagonists did not gain fulsome praise from their Leader and even moderate supporters have turned critical. But it is the methodology and morality behind this failed triumph which should be scrutinised. The lessons and outcomes are salutary, even as the dust has all but settled, the issue being seen as a frisson in a very small teacup.

As we have seen with some countries’ leaders in the recent past, mendacity and moral turpitude have become a way of life, something citizens sadly have come to accept as the new normal. Into this mix have appeared conspiracy theories on a grand scale and propaganda machines lulling people into false hope by mainlining them fake news. Complicit in this are those politicians who stoke the fires of moral outrage with a diet of lunar theories and hollow rhetoric. Unfortunately, there are many who believe these rabid notions, constantly being harangued by a compliant media and ‘power-at-any-cost’, aspiring demagogues.

By any stretch, there was no point to the Opposition’s queries. The answers had been given months ago and the health and recovery of the Premier, though not in great detail, was known broadly. Moreover, nobody in their wildest dreams would concoct a scenario to injure themselves or be injured by others so badly involving possible paraplegia, as to execute some dastardly plan. It would be laughable to the point of side-splitting, were the questions not put in all seriousness (but maybe not sincerity) by Her Majesty’s Loyal Victorian Opposition. There can be many explanations:

· Lack of cut-through — the pandemic has sidelined Oppositions in favour of governments, leading to relevance deprivation;

· Lack of challenge to the State Premier — Premier Andrews has an overall popularity rating of some 72%;

· Lack of direction — there was no overall strategic attack plan or direction;

· Lack of leadership — there was nobody to oversee and direct such an attack as a whole-of-Party tactic, countermanding any actions deemed inappropriate or unwise;

· Lack of depth — no visionary policies to promote or inspirational, charismatic identities;

· Desperation to be heard — one Opposition MP has blithely stated that it’s his job to gain attention (regardless of substance);

· Tactics — the Opposition Leader has often been accused of being weak, so this line of questioning appears tough on dishonesty and impropriety;

· Morality — conservatives have taken offence at the progressive policies of the Labor government and so will try to prove immorality, deceit and depravity;

· Anger — for many years, the conservative Liberal Party ruled Victoria and they are angry to have consistently failed, with only one term of government in six elections;

· Arrogance — Victoria was once the jewel in the crown of the Australian conservatives, a bastion of right-wing politics, thus a “born to rule” mentality;

· Stupidity — someone had a “brainwave” which sounded like a good idea at the time, without proper examination of the situation or consequences, a knee-jerk “Do something!”.

While it is certain the Opposition has stated motives (undoubtedly high-minded and lofty), the upshot has been one of ridicule and being besmirched with the very epithets they wished to convey about the Premier: immoral, dirty and “vile and disgusting”. It is also a reminder that those in glass houses should not throw stones — some have pointed out previous misdemeanours on behalf of one of the players.

The Opposition’s attempt at finding a smoking gun failed. To mine a set of circumstances, there should be tangible offerings on which to hang credible scenarios and draw conclusions. On each and every question (twelve in total), an answer has been in the public domain with ample proof of normality. Instead of raising doubts concerning the Premier’s honesty, trustworthiness and suitability for office, the expedition has accomplished the opposite. People are incredulous at the lines of inquiry, the sheer stupidity of attempting to pass off as sinister something mundane and the immorality of intruding into the illness of an injured person.

While some are irate at the questioning the Premier’s injuries, most are amazed at the inadvisability of such a political device, devoid of nuance or sophistication. While there are the usual and futile calls for the resignations of the main actors, the real damage to the Opposition is the use of political capital on a fruitless and finally, own-goal outcome. With no concrete evidence, based on rumour and echo-chamber hearsay (allegedly from Queensland), they have embarked on a destructive course of inquisition with an astonishingly negative effect.

In this bowdlerised form, “Schrödinger’s Gun” is both alive and dead, a weapon of damage to both user and intended victim. With no backup and no corroboration, a campaign has been launched against a popular figure to impugn his reputation. What has happened is the intended victim has emerged virtually unscathed but the instigators are the ones wounded. Their carelessness and inattention to detail has resulted in ridicule and worse, a loss of political standing and credibility. While a certain amount of mud sticks, the Premier has been proven innocent, while the Opposition appears muddled, desperate and asinine at best.

In the words of philosopher George Berkeley regarding the infamous state of Schrödinger’s Cat, “An item truly exists only as long as it is observed; otherwise, it is not only meaningless but simply non-existent”. Thus, the assertions of the Opposition not only don’t exist, but in the observable universe, they are palpably false. Surely an unsound base from which to launch an election campaign for 2022.

Anthony Leong is a former Labor staffer.