It appears that former Victorian Police Commissioner Christine Nixon’s new book (of which you can read an extract here) has relit the metaphorical fires surrounding her tenure. Her political battles with sections of the force, and News Limited, were brought to a head by the tragic events of Black Saturday and her failures on that day.
Like Nixon, but for somewhat different reasons, I was thoroughly unimpressed with the process and outcomes of the Black Saturday Royal Commission – it did turn into a witch hunt, aided and abetted by the simplistic Herald-Sun reporting. Yes, it was a pile-on where people took advantage of the situation to pursue a long-standing beef. There were, in my view, substantial sexist elements to the criticism Nixon dealt with throughout her entire term as commissioner. And – when it comes down to it, Christine Nixon’s presence or absence at the Metropolitan Hotel that night did not cause or contribute to a single death. The key failures of leadership on Black Saturday have been 150 years in the making, and, frankly, have still not been addressed because they’re too hard.
And, yet, at least on the evidence of this excerpt of her memoirs, I wonder whether Nixon, still, has a fundamental misconception of the roles of a leader in a disaster.
Nixon states:
At the heart of this critical – albeit publicly neglected – phase in the commission’s inquiry was an attempt to evaluate the planning and systems in place to cope with a major disaster in Victoria. In part this turned on the question about whether I, or anyone else in a command position, might have done more on the day. A view strongly argued by the tabloid and talkback commentariat was that the state might have been better served by a military-style command structure. People often have quite a mistaken view of military protocols for emergencies, imagining that they rest on highly centralised command-and-control regimes, and that such a system is superior for dealing with a catastrophic event. This was the rationale often enlisted to criticise my actions on that day, particularly by more reactionary male voices, who like to summon up the image of the heroic commander striding in, instantly appraising the crisis, and seizing control. But, in fact, their imaginings betray how little they actually know of military and emergency management systems.
As Professor Herman Leonard, an expert in leadership and crisis management from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government – my alma mater – informed the commission, effective modern military fighting forces decentralise power, giving authority and discretion to act to forces on the ground, with headquarters providing support, resources and guidance, “but very few direct commands to the field units”.
…Eventually the royal commission would determine that my leadership on the day left much to be desired, criticising me for a “hands off ” approach. Of my leaving the emergency headquarters that evening, it said, “it is not satisfactory that at this time – when she was aware of the potential for disaster and, in fact, while the magnitude of the disaster was becoming apparent with the confirmation of fatalities – Ms Nixon was absent … and did not take action to inform herself”. While the commissioners were “dismayed” with my evidence, they concluded that I had not deliberately misled them.
Nixon is undoubtedly correct that, in most cases, most of the actual decision-making should be left in the hands of those in the best position to make it. But – at least in this excerpt, she ignores the other crucial role of the leader in a disaster. She mocks the “heroic commander”. But it seems to me that the “heroic commander” role does serve a vital function in adverse circumstances, even if they are doing very little direction. While it can, essentially, be little more than an act, the presence of the “heroic leader” brings confidence and reassurance – morale, if you will – when, by objective measures, things are turning to shit. By contrast, the leader who isn’t visible is scorned.
In many ways, fulfilling the “heroic leader” role seems to me to be among the easier things that a person placed in a leadership position might be called on to do. People are looking desperately for such leadership in disasters, won’t quibble, and will forgive much. And they get remembered for it, sometimes far more than they deserve, for some time afterward. Look at Rudy Guiliani.
If Nixon had understood the symbolic power of the heroic commander, she would in my view have saved herself a great deal of the media shitstorm she found herself in. I am genuinely amazed that she still, apparently, doesn’t get it.
It is unfortunate that such a terrible tradgedy was required to finally get rid of Nixon. She was a failure well before the bushfires.
She was a very good commissioner. That’s why they drove her out.
“If Nixon had understood the symbolic power of the heroic commander, she would in my view have saved herself a great deal of the media shitstorm she found herself in. I am genuinely amazed that she still, apparently, doesn’t get it.”
There would have been no value in having a ‘heroic commander’ around the HQ staff since they need to focus on rational and dispassionate decision making without ther useless distraction of a senior management ‘cheerleader’. And is anybody seriously suggesting there would have been heroic or symbolic value to operational fire services in her being out with one of the many hundreds of operational units.
Twas a ridiculous beat-up.
Jenny, the HQ staff aren’t the only people in need of reassurance in such times. There’s the broader public.
She was a very good commissioner. That’s why they drove her out.”
Indeed she was. Also honest a rare commodity in today’s policing.
I am amazed at the myth that permeates society that once you become a “Police Commissioner” you are supposed to know everything. What the hell would Nixon know about fighting fires? She has nothing to be ashamed of.
But for mine her cardinal sin was being born a women, misogyny in the police force is alive and well me thinks.
Although I saw nothing of it, the verdict, generally, was that Anna Bligh got that right during the floods: providing the image that the government was there, knowing what was going on, acting where it could.
On the other hand you have to be careful of the charismatic leader because they usually end up disappointing a lot of people. Obama might be an example, Blair certainly was.
If she was “Chris Nixon” the Heroic Commander schtick might have worked, just as if it were “Ruby Guiliani” it is unlikely to have been the same. Anna Bligh didn’t come across as a heroic commander, she came across as someone going through the same stuff as everyone else.
I agree Robert,perception is everything. No matter that her presence in the command room would not have changed any outcomes .Had Bligh left it to the ‘experts’ alone during the floods she too would have been castigated by all and sundry.
I think Robert makes a good observation in this post.
In crises there needs to be a strong leadership presence on the floor. The tech experts and operational leaders are only human – the heroic leader buttresses morale and provides reassurance.
Murdochian disapprobation of Christine Nixon didn’t begin with the fires.
If she wanted to keep the Hun hacks at bay she should have played the heroine. She made a choice not to and copped a shit storm.
Did she demonstrate qualities inconsistent with her commission? Of course not.
Did she demonstrate political savvy? Of course not.
She was sacrificed to the Brumby government’s quest for re-election.
What we (Victorians) required that weekend was prior warning: the Premier and senior police, CFA leaders gave it several days ahead of the catastrophe; calmly but firmly.
Once the blazes began, we needed information. Leadership consisted of making sure information was accurate and readily available.
The anaolgy with Ms Bligh is strained: the flood damage and disaster management were spread over a much longer period of time.
Ambigulous, yep, that’s true.
One thing the Royal Commission showed, IIRC, was that the leadership didn’t have accurate, readily available information to give.
As I understand it, the reason why they didn’t have that information was that, as a matter of policy, they didn’t regard it as a key responsibility and hadn’t put any effort into building systems to collect and distribute it.
Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether that has actually changed a lot. Perhaps I haven’t been following closely enough, but I strongly suspect that stay or go is still very much around.
She was sacrificed to the Brumby government’s quest for re-election.
Katz, you are kidding. Brumby’s determination to hold on to her until the bitter end cost him dearly. He could have (and should have) cut her loose much earlier.
The tribal defence of Christine Nixon evident in this thread is amusing indeed. Was she (generally) a good commissioner? Yes. Was the Hun out to get her? Yes. Did she take on the dinosaurs in the police and (especially) the police union? Yes. Was it inevitable that these people would not take it lying down? Yes.
Unfortunately: did she fuck up on the night of the fires? Yes. Did she put in a lamentable performance at the Royal Commission? Yes.
Was she a savvy player of the media during (the vast majority of) her time? Yes. Are public figures who live by media sword more susceptible to die by it? Yes.
Did she fall or was she pushed? Yes.
All up, she did pretty well to survive as long as she did. Her successor, who was not nearly as skilled at the game, came and went in a comparative instant.
Slightly offtopic, but has anybody had a look at the Country Fire Authority’s Fire Ready Kit?
It reeks of Stay or Go.
Rob said in the intro:
Without knowing what concrete measures you’re talking about, why are they too hard? This is actually my conception of what a leader has to do, make sure necessary reform is undertaken in an institution that requires reform. The leader has to argue and fight for this reform.
A leader also has to have people working for him that ensure that the institution is running effectively and is able to respond to emergency situations.
My metaphor would be: The leader as director and not the lead actor.
And I disagree with this figure-head stuff on two grounds: it is not easy and it is not compatible with a democratic institution. Of course there needs to be some hierarchy of command, but the symbolic nature of the leader is not a significant reason for this organisational structure.
If the organisation did not respond as expected, Nixon as head of the organisation should be held responsible, but not because she didn’t react in some undefined superficial way. Without knowing the details of the situation at first glance there would seem to have been a serious breakdown in the management of the organisation at the level immediate and immediately below that of Nixon. Having said that, it is part of her responsibility to have the correct people in these positions. And in relation to that matter, take a look at the long running disaster which is the NSW police force (or indeed some of the other state0run institutions and their “struggle” to reform.)
Sam, avoid fatuousness.
Black Saturday was 7 Feb 2009.
Nixon ceased being Commissioner on 27 Feb 2009.
20 days. Count them. 20 days. Would that look like Brumby defending Nixon “to the bitter end” to a sensible person?
How much quicker could Brumby have acted?
I heard it pointed before how essential it is to have a clean transition of shifts in an emergency so that everyone is aware of who is in power at any point in time. If Dixon was to have done a 24 to 36 hour shift she’d have ended up making mistakes; being a human, she is required to sleep and eat and be rested so she is ready for her next shift. This as I understand was the policy that she was following and was expected to follow.
For me the important thing is not whether Nixon was good or bad as a Commissioner or whether, more specifically, she stuffed up on the day of the fires. What stinks is the way the Murdoch press have behaved and what this reveals about the relationship between the media and the state. The phone-tapping scandal in Britain has uncovered close, and almost certainly corrupt, ties between the police and leading Murdoch journalists/editors which may also extend to Tory politicians. Sound familiar?
Bruce Guthrie was interviewed by John Faine on this today and he argued that the relationship between Nixon and News Limited soured after the retirement of Murdoch’s sister from the board, adding that Nixon and the sister “had always been close”.
People here have commented about sexism in relation to this, and I’m not denying it played a role, at least in providing part of the way in which the attack on Nixon was constructed ideologically. But sexism doesn’t explain the similar campaign against Overland, who was clearly attacked after he dared to criticise the Australian for endangering a police operation.
Nor is it simply about the nasty press baron bullying the nice police chiefs. The close relationship has developed over time and has aided the police. They have used the press, especially the Murdoch tabloids, to pursue their own agenda around Laura Norder and to expand the force and increase its powers.
What it all shows is what a small and nasty world our rulers inhabit, how corrupt, and how brazen is their use and misuse of power. Simon Overland must, in particular, be feeling pissed off that Murdoch wasn’t plunged into his current mire a few months earlier. It may have saved his career.
Come off it Katz. Nixon announced the decision to retire on November 5 2008. That was three months before Black Saturday. Immediately after the fires Brumby created the Bushfire Authority and appointed her to chair it. During the Royal Commission there were calls aplenty for her to step down from the authority but Brumby wouldn’t have bar of it, until the Commission reported and she had no choice but to resign in July 2010.
If Brumby had been more ruthless or more astute he would have made her quit much earlier.
Democracy is many things. An appropriate way to make minute-by-minute decisions in a genuine emergency situation is not one of them.
Robert,
I am not saying that we need to vote on every issue in an emergency, but a state organisation is part of our democratic infrastructure.
Is Robert Reagan a good person to have as president of the US? What are his special qualities? He’s an actor… Al-right. I’m going to just say now, that may help a party get voted into office, but being a good actor, which does take a lot of time and training, is different from being able to lead an organisation well.
But most people think otherwise. Does that mean they are correct? Perhaps they don’t really even want a good government?
I was going to ask Who would you buy a car from etc but instead I’ll ask who would you rather deal with a police matter..Christine Nixon or Paul Mullet or Christine Nixon or Greg Davies??
@Joe, much as I’m absolutely not a fan of Reagan’s “legacy”, this “just an actor” trope is sheer laziness on your part. Reagan *started* his public life as an actor. He was extremely active in movie industry politics through the Actors’ Guild, and then he moved into state politics where he was served two terms as governor of California, which as a standalone economy was then as now one of the largest economies in the world.
He simply did not run for the presidency on his record as an actor, he ran for the office on the strength of his record as a senior, significant elected official. His actorly communication tricks led many people to underestimate his intelligence and overestimate his sincerity to their later cost, sure. But they didn’t vote for him just because they’d liked his movies thirty years earlier.
TT,
sure, I meant this in a polemical way. More as the expression of a tendency than as a literal fact. Perhaps not a great idea in the current climate.
And look at California’s last Governor?!
Also, I see in Tony Abbott a person who is much more concerned about his perceived appearance than the issues facing the country. Of course, politicians do require a public profile, but it can be a problem, when the public loses interest in the government of the nation (in this case) because reading about a public actor’s personal characteristics is so much easier.
I, personally, do feel concerned about the type of people that the US elects as president. For me, there is a question mark about the process which leads to these types of people becoming president.
@ Zorronsky, Christine Nixon? Paul (Stunned) Mullett? Greg Davies? Now, there’s a name to conjure with. According to Mr Davies, Ms Nixon emasculated the [Victorian] police force. His moustache would seem to belie his claims.
As for who would be better at dealing with police matters, the vitriolic hostility of the Police Association, coupled in so unseemly a way (one might almost say it amounted to miscegenation) with the News Ltd’s organs, makes the answer self-evident.
Here Sam:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/nixon-quits-top-cop-job/story-e6frf7kx-1111117947938
Brumby cut Nixon loose a full month earlier than planned.
Thanks Fiona I thought it was just me.
Brumby cut Nixon loose a full month earlier than planned
By appointing her the chair to bushfire authority? Immediately after the worst natural disaster in Victorian history?
She retired the coppers a month early to take up this most important of posts. The story about her leaving the command centre to go to dinner had yet to come out. It was because she was such a respected figure (at the time) that Brumby appointed her to the authority.
Brumby didn’t cut her loose. Just when she thought she was off to a quiet retirement, he prolonged her career as a public figure. She could hardly refuse him in the circumstances.
And that was the problem. I’ll bet that on the night, Nixon thought “Fuck it, I’m retiring soon, I can’t do anything useful here, I’ll go out and get a bite to eat”. If she’d known that there would be such huge loss of life, and that she’d be chairing the ensuing bushfire authority (which neither she nor anyone else knew was going to exist), instead of going out to eat she’d have got an assistant to fetch her a Meat Lover’s Pizza (triple mozzarella) or a bucket of KFC, or both.
But she didn’t know.
Sam, to be fair to Robert Merkel, his comments makes it clear he believes Nixon to be a fairly clueless individual.
Though I think it’s important for progressives and feminists looking at this story to realise that Nixon’s male sucessor fell (was pushed down) harder and quicker than Christine fell (was pushed down). The destruction of Simon Overland is every bit as big a story of VicPol dysfunctionality as Nixon’s problems were. It just doesn’t have the same narrative pull as Nixon’s story does for people reading this blog.
Also, it appears Overland was the victim of a meeja campaign waged not by the Herald Sun, but by radio 3AW’s Neil Mitchell (an ex-Age man). Another reason for teh nationwide Left to ignore that story.
Now, why did the two chiefs burn? Simple. They were outsiders, not creatures of the Victorian Police. Nixon was from Sydney and the Rum Corp, Overland from Canberra and the Plastic Fantastics.
The bastard in me would love it if Baillieu made the awesome mistake of choosing an even more alien figure to lead the local walloppers—Sir Ken Jones, ex of Scotland Yard. Grassroot Liberal bluehairs might thrill to the prospect of having a knight of the realm keeping the good people of Victoria safe, but the Old Boys of VicPol and the police association would have a stroke. The knives would be out again and sharpened way, way sharper than they were for Nixon or Overland.
Katz, you’re missing the real potential Brumby-related scandal—Overland’s supposed meddling in crime statistics in the lead up to the last state election in order to make things look more nice and peaceful than they are.
I’m surprised you’d ignore that quite substantive controversy, with you instead obsessing about this strawman argument about Labor stabbing an innocent public servant in the back… Oh, wait, maybe I’m not.
” She was a very good commissioner. That’s why they drove her out. ”
Do you do standup? Her biggest achievement was that she managed to disgrace the uniforms of two police forces in one country. As an Assistant Commissioner in NSWP, the best thing she did for the rest of us was head south.
he believes Nixon to be a fairly clueless individual.
But that’s the strange thing. Until Black Saturday, she was extremely clued in.
Small example: She was appointed by Bracks who, with half the cabinet, lived in Williamstown (one of the very few desirable places to live in Melbourne that is in a Labor electorate).
Nixon moves down from Sydney and where does she buy a house? Williamstown, of course. Her antanna was up the whole time until she got the fungries on that fateful Saturday evening.
Perhaps what she did understand is that leadership in a crisis is not all about the public perception after the event. Sure there are times when a heroic commander might make the critical difference to a team trying to defend a school full of children. But a police chief who was not an emergency management expert?
The crucial thing for Nixon to have done during the crisis was to stay alert and stand back from hurley burley. Stand back and make sure key people haven’t reached a point where their performance is deteriorating or where the whole team has become locked on to a particular problem or particular solution.
It is easy and very tempting to immerse oneself in hands on control. A more professional leader might understand herself and her team better than this and have the discipline to avoid the heroic role when it is not appropriate. The media and Jack Rush of the commission did not understand this.
FWIW, I’m extremely disquieted about Overland’s departure too. I simply don’t know enough to make intelligent comment – except that the lack of information is in itself extremely troublesome.
John, I don’t think there’s a contradiction between being the “heroic leader” and leaving operational decision-making to those best placed to do so.
Is there?
Rarely has a non sequitur on the comments threads of this blog made me go ‘Whaah?’
Thre Greens haven’t yet won all of that trendy inner-city territory east of the Yarra mouth/Maribynong River axis. Or any of it, for that matter.
I hate to be the one to have to tell you, but Merri Creek doesn’t count as a waterfront view.
‘Waterfront views’? Can you translate that into Melbournese?
Actually I don’t think there is a word in our language for that Sydneysiderism. Lanefront views?
Robert: You are right. An heroic leader could grab a hose and charge into the fray while letting operational managers get on with the management of the crisis. The idea I don’t like is the one that says in effect that Nixon’s actions should have been guided by political considerations. I also don’t like the “all leaders should…” line. You hear it far too often in second rate management courses.
Leaders get into trouble when they feel obliged to use a leadership role/style that they are not comfortable with. Turnbull always seemed to get into trouble when he tried to play the attack dog instead of concentrating on his vision/policy strengths.
Is a “heroic leader” what is needed in a control centre during a crisis?
I’d have thought that a leader who indicates her support of and confidence in the management teams is what is needed, someone who smoothes frazzled nerves. Makes things happen through formal and informal use of the power of the Police Commissioner’s office.
There is no value in micro-management, empty symbolic gestures or heroic leadership, whatever that phrase might mean to whoever brought it into this discussion.
FWIW, I suspect that Nixon failed to put out her own fires, those which relate to misunderstanding of the role of a chief executive during a crisis. She had a role and it certainly did not include dinner with or without a booze, during the crisis, with her phone turned off. Going missing in action is not a good look under those circumstances, but heroism in any shape is counterproductive.
Her best efforts should have been put into doing what she was required to do under the legislation: to lead the response to the crisis. She failed to lead once she agreed to be photographed acting the role of a visitor to the control room, rather than its supporter-in-chief.
Christine Nixon did not know her job and she did not do her duty. Whether she fell or was pushed matters little. What matters most is that she failed to lead by choosing to be a visitor, an onlooker.
Not party political, as such. But Chief Commissioner of police is inherently a public, highly political role – both in terms of the internal politics of the police force, and its relationship with the public and government. If you’re not good at that aspect of the job, you’re not good at the job.
And Christine Nixon was, as others have noted, pretty adept at it most of the time. But on this one occasion she got the politics horribly wrong. That she, apparently, doesn’t understand why is surprising and concerning.
Latte-front views?
“And that was the problem. I’ll bet that on the night, Nixon thought “Fuck it, I’m retiring soon, I can’t do anything useful here, I’ll go out and get a bite to eat”. If she’d known that there would be such huge loss of life, and that she’d be chairing the ensuing bushfire authority (which neither she nor anyone else knew was going to exist), instead of going out to eat she’d have got an assistant to fetch her a Meat Lover’s Pizza (triple mozzarella) or a bucket of KFC, or both.”
Yeah. not only was she a woman who dared to emasculate the Police Association, but she’s a fat woman. Of course, she must be someone who pigs out on junk. So interesting how these tropes replay here.
A friend who’s a senior criminal barrister and has little time for the Victorian Police thought she was doing an excellent job in the face of cronyism and corruption. She was an honest cop.
Robert, “good at her job” kind of begs the question. If she’d toed the cultural line, turned a blind eye to corruption and cultural bullying, and kept the drinks cabinets at police HQ stocked, she might have still exited with an approving tick from the culture. That would have been “politically correct” in the real, as opposed to culture wars usage. But would she necessarily have been doing a better job? I think some of the odium surrounding her is because she *was* trying to work towards something better, and people didn’t like it.
What Helen said.
An agent of change needs to be very careful about which apple carts she chooses to upset. Keepers of entrenched cultures are by definition powerful. Nixon’s enemies were skilled snipers. The bushfire incident was the headshot. But it is true that Nixon didn’t cover herself sufficiently to avoid assassination.
The public were accepting enough of this assassination because Nixon had already been identified as a suitable scapegoat by the Murdoch press and by other outlets following the Murdoch lead.
‘Waterfront views’ in Melbourne? What a laugh! FWIW, the strip along the Bay from Port Melbourne through to St. Kilda is still Labor territory. Do you actually live in Melbourne, Sam?
I live in Charters Towers. Why do you ask?
That explains why your proposition that Nixon chose to move into the only decent bit of Melbourne held by Labor is incorrect.
And of course, Nixon’s critics are so… unbiased!! :-/
Nope, no political motivation to see here, move along!
Why do newspapers print these things? Can’t they just put the headline and then “Mandy Rice-Davies, The End”. They would have more space for ads that way.
Helen 49
well, of course, the likes of Kennett are jumping on board, but that changes nothing. Objectively, Nixon messed up by going out to dinner on that fateful evening and messed up further with her evidence to the Royal Commission. And now she’s messed up even further with what looks perilously close to being a self-pitying whinge.
And this is in itself a pity. Nixon had enough credits in the bank, even after the Royal Commission, to make a come back to public life after a suitable interval. Others, with less talent, have come back from worse.
But she’s got to stop digging herself in deeper.
The outcome is: If you’re offered the Chief Police Commissioner job in Victoria, run a mile.
I agree Helen, and I should have made clear in the post that I thought she had otherwise done a very good job, in the face of concerted opposition by some fairly ruthless and unpleasant (to put it mildly) people.
If you’re offered the Chief Police Commissioner job in Victoria, run a mile.
Not necessarily. You just have to accept that if you do your job as it should be done, you’re going to make a lot of enemies, and one slip of judgment will be fatal. Nixon lasted nearly eight years in the job. She did extremely well. Ask Simon Overland.
Some interesting viewpoints above.
Most on the same (erronous) theme, ie. the commander is irrelevant.
If that is so, why have a commander at all? Why have any rank or hierarchy in the police, or in anything?
The meme that the commander is irrelevant is rather a contrast to the prevailing opinion on this site regarding the impact of command in the News Ltd organisation.
If the commander’s performance is unaltered by being in a pub & out of contact (when people are being killed on their watch), then the question is not why have a commander at all, but; How did such a weak character get anywhere near the job?
Steve at the Pub, I hestitate to use military examples, but…
Would you want John Howard or Julia Gillard giving tactical minute-by-minute orders to an SAS team on an operation in Afghanistan?
Just because somebody has the role of commander, doesn’t mean they should be the ones giving the tactical orders.
That’s Nixon’s argument, and I think an entirely reasonable one.
So if Eisenhower had been uncontactable during the Normandy landings, that would have been OK?
Robert, I wouldn’t want the Commander of the black saturday bushfires telling the driver of a fire truck which gear to engage or which hose nozzle to use.
However, I expect the Commander to be in Command, not to be in the pub.
Yes, I agree. And even if not for the police in operational roles themselves (though I reckon they would have expected her there), for the broader public.
Sam @56. From what I know of the Normandy landings it almost certainly would have been. He would have been involved in some detail in the tactical preperation, but once the landings had started he would have been irrelevant. More important imho is the fact that, whether or not Nixon was mistaken, the Hun decided to go her over this whereas, if she’d been on the in with them she would have been given a free ride.
Robert 59
I agree about the Hun, which is full of double standards. This is all the more reason why Nixon had to be careful about what she did.
Although, as I said up thread, Nixon probably thought she was retiring in a few weeks and so maybe didn’t give a shit any more what the Hun thought about her. She wasn’t to know there was going to be a Royal Commission and that she would be spending the next 12+ months in the public gaze as as head of the bushfire authority.
@55 – actually, these days with the communications available one of the scenarios often trained for is having Cabinet level comms into battlefield scenarios.
A leader doesn’t have to be liked but they do need to be respected. Nixon never achieved either within VICPOL.
No, a Commander at Nixon’s level may not have had to have been there pointing the hoses on the fire, but she should have been working her substantial butt off to establish comms and then gather info from the burnt areas and been building the relief packages etc.
My personal experience of leadership is that the Commander needs to place themselves where they can influence the point of decision. Nixon seems to have quite a different view.
As for calling the Royal Commission a witch hunt – she’s the one who gave her evidence . . .
But did the infrastructure to do this exist? Does it exist now? Isn’t that part of the problem?
Mindy – if the comms were down then deploying assets into the area to re-establish comms should have been a high operational priority.
What I’m asking is whether the comms actually existed in the first place and if there was any scope for deploying assets into the area i.e. did those assets exist to deploy?
I run a unit that has peak times when everything really has to go right. I had a recent argument with my 2ICs as to whether Nixon really needed to be there. They pointed out that during our peak times I am always hanging around fretting and that is what they would expect of Nixon.
Yet I would argue that the only reason I am bugging them at those times is because I am a worry-wart, control freak. After all, my 2ICs are highly confident people, are well trained, have clear procedures to follow and have reliable systems/backup systems to rely on. In fact I sometimes feel a bit guilty that I am unnecessarily bothering them. And I assumed that they must be annoyed to have me fretting around them.
Yet they expressed strong views that they expect that kind of bothering from me and similarly expected it of Ms Nixon. That seems wrong to me. Our job is to ensure we have the right people, procedures and systems in place – if we have to be there on crisis days to ensure everything works then we have already failed. Yet even my own staff don’t agree with me. I’m confused. Naturally, I still think I’m right.
P.S. I’m not persuaded by the argument that Ms Nixon needed to do a public reassurance gig – I think that is a role for pollies, not CEOs.
As every schoolboy knows, once the la gun craft were launched there was no turning back. The die were cast. There was nothing for Ike to do.
In fact he used the time writing a letter explaining a feared failure. Would Nixon have been blamed for doing the shame thing?
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/d-day-message/
Err… Landing craft.
Some facts about Victoria might help to join the dots for many here.
- Police links with people who have later been “found dead”
- Two Police Commissioners who have been dedicated to flushing out corruption within the force.
- A Police Association which presents a public face and a private practice closely aligned with bullying behaviour.
- A prison inmate said to have given, or be about to give, evidence of corruption involving the police force and others.
- A News Ltd. media agenda which was vindictive, vitriolic and downright lying in it’s coverage of events.
- Politicians who had, and still do, meddle in policing issues outside their proper boundaries.
- A classic ability to turn the focus and publicity over a book away from current wrongdoings back on to past events like the bushfires and the subsequent Royal Commission.
- What now appears to be a questionable linkage between the appointment of Bernie Teague to that Commission and his recent appointment by News Ltd. to head an inquiry into News Ltd, along with the appointment of Jack Rush to assist the Royal Commission and his subsequent appointment to head an inquiry into the Office of Police Integrity.
Surely some of the commentators here have an inkling of interest in some of these issues as well which are referred to in Christine Nixon’s book.
There has also been a lot of commentary today about “the fact” that Christine Nixon “called the Royal Commission a Kangaroo Court”. No, she did not. The statement was not made in the book of the Royal Commission into the bushfires – it’s context was in relation to Royal Commissions generally and was that there was a possibility of these commissions turning into kangaroo courts. (Which by the way was my own perception of the Bushfire Commission itself and the role of Jack Rush).
So in a disaster that might well go on for many days it is important to have a leader available around-the-clock to override and undermine the commands given by the shift leader, and to keep working until declared exhausted by at least 2 doctors, but still should be contactable by the hot phone kept by a bed, so that people will know that the on duty manager still isn’t the real boss. Also the scheduled replacement who has been waiting around eager to take the reigns can take control but only after they have waited 20 hours or so for the boss to collapse. When the replacement is exhausted, well, you can just get some middle manager or something to run the show, the public will have lost interest by then anyway.
The series 24 might have been a been a bit more interesting had it been called 72, the hallucinations are a little distracting at around the 40 hour mark, but they get quite crazy after about 60. Ensuring the public know that our leaders are out there in control is the important thing. The actual functional job of being a leader is irrelevant.
What mediatracker and James Wakefield said. Anyone who manages to get News Ltd and the Victorian Police Association offside must be doing something right.
The thing that has to remembered is that the whole command and control system was fatally flawed. You have to examine it from a systems theory (or cybernetics) point of view.
Basically it was hierarchical one-speed system. it was ‘designed’ to operate where all information flowed upwards then interpreted, then flowed back down as orders and information.
This means there are time lags built in, plus attenuation.
As long as things happened within the inherent speed limit of the system it can work ok. But when events happen faster than the system can cope then it falls further and further behind reality.
At one point they were several hours behind what was actually happening on the ground.
What you need is a faster, ideally multi-speed system. One option is where you switch to regional, then local command if the variance becomes too great. Anyway, the people who designed, okeyed and ran the system are all culpable.
I say this because we have known better than this since the 1930′s. The classic example of a proper command and control system, fast enough to deal with events, with delegation and tremendous redundancy, was the famous ‘Dowding System’, as used for Fighter Command in the Battle of Britain. Designed and built in the late 1930′s.
Imagine the BoB with the CFA (etc) system. “Bandits at Angels 30 approaching from the east, scramble squadron X”.
Squadron X: “they bombed us an hour ago and went gone home, old chap”.
Nixon is not a Dowding. If you have little understanding of command and control systems then you shouldn’t be in top jobs.
At one point you think someone might have realised things were so bad and (say) switch command to local areas. Say, being cynical, when they were only an hour behind reality. Sadly, there wasn’t a single real ‘leader’ in the whole room. Which is par for the course these days.
Imagine, 21st century and we are far more incompetent than in the 1930′s. Who would have ever believed it. Expertise with Powerpoint presentations is not actually leadership.
The Hun has a really deployable frontpage headline today monstering Nixon to give the profits from her autobiography to the bushfire victims. They appear to have verballed a Black Saturday survivor into repeating this emotional blackmail, even though the man says he doesn’t think the ex-chief did a bad job at the time. Shocking stuff. Bastards are pushing back against Nixon hard. I await Guthrie’s rundown about all this in his Age column.
As for Ike and the D-Day invasion, history tells us that once he gave the go ahead on the night of 5th June, 1944, he knew he had only one command action to prepare for: “Our landings have failed and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”
Note: I’m certain that in the event of German success Eisenhower wouldn’t have been ‘withdrawing’ those forces per se, he would merely have been confirming Montgomery’s tactical decision to not send any more troops onshore to be slaughtered. Yet he was prepared to take the whole responsibility on his shoulders for purely ethical reasons, not because he was involved that day in any particular detail. Obviously Nixon needed her own ‘In Case Of Failure’ option for Black Saturday for the same abstract leadership notions.
Nickws, just some points of historical pedantry.
Eisenhower didn’t give his order for the invasion on the night of 5 June 1944. He gave it in the early morning of that day. That had to be so for the sheer vastness of deployment of the invasion to take place.
His letter for use in the event of the failure of the invasion was drafted in the afternoon of that day, before the invasion began.
But then how did he spend the day of the invasion?
“According to his secretary-chauffeur Kay Summersby, as recounted in David Eisenhower’s book, “Eisenhower spent most of the day in his trailer drinking endless cups of coffee, ‘waiting for the reports to come.’ Few did, and so Eisenhower gained only sketchy details for most of the day about the British beaches, UTAH and the crisis at OMAHA, where for several hours the fate of the invasion hung in the balance.” ”
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/d-day-memo/
Which I think makes the points that you and Katz and others have made about the irrelevance of the leader when the die has been cast.
However he did not head off the Savoy for a slap-up dinner in the evening of 6 June and I think that had he done so, whether Operation Overlord was at that time successful or not, he would never have been forgiven for doing so.
That would have been seen as callous.
Steve @the pub: In this modern age it is a bit hard to believe that Nixon was out of contact while having her pub meal.
It is a bit hard to imagine that Nixon was the right person to have hands on control given that black Saturday was about fire fighting rather than policing.
Also keep in mind that the fires were going to be bad for far longer than any individual can work effectively for. They all needed to take a break when the opportunity was right.
John D the uncontested evidence before the Royal Commission was that she had switched off her mobile phone. So she was out of contact because she had made herself so.
The thing about this for me is the urgency and with distress that John Brumby, having taken the best advice and having acted on it, promoted and explained to the people of Victoria on the day before the bushfire calamity occurred about what extreme conditions they were facing and what they had to understand and what they had to take responsibiliity for and act on.
His message was explicit and shocking as it had to be. It was a call to action for those who might be affected about what he was warning about.
And he repeated it,
Again and again and again, trying to make the people of Victoria undersatnd what they were facing on the following day and to take responsibility and action about it.
I have unreserved admiration for John Brumby as a leader in a time of crisis.
I have unreserved contempt for those people who ignored his repeated warnings and particularly those who claim they never heard it and then went off to the Royal Commission to whinge about it. They are arseh0les and they are parasites.
But for me that doesn’t excuse Christine Nixon for turning her mobile off.
I notice that people are making comparisons with Anna Bligh. Perhaps that’s valid, by why then is John Brumby’s behaviour not further scrutinised?
Could it be that The Hun’s basic problem with Nixon was that they couldn’t understand a management style radically different from John Hartigan’s?
I reckon FX made the definitive comment on this back in 2010.
Style over substance is what our tabloid news outlets are always pushing.
Ambigulous @11 the Victorian government were telling people on the radio on Wednesday night that Saturday was going to be an unprecedented fire danger day with the fire index expected to reach 500+. The premier urged people to evacuate sooner rather than later ie be packed and go on Thursday morning because there are big populations that would be trapped on narrow roads around Healesville and Warrandyte. People with holiday houses and rental properties in Marysville and St Andrews drove up to their properties on the Saturday morning, putting themselves in harm’s way.
Leadership, I watched Christine Nixon march [in uniform] in the Gay Pride March. She was welcomed by loud cheers because the message she sent to the community was that ‘poofta bashing’ was not acceptable. The was not the sort of leadership the Hun wanted.
The chief fire commissioner also left for dinner, not remarked upon in the Hun.
Hard to compare Bligh’s response to the unfolding flood disaster in Queensland with the Victorian leaders tour of the fire afflicted landscape. Better to contrast Bligh to Baillieu’s response to the victorian floods in 2011 after Brisbane floods.
I hope Christine Nixon runs her own SMSF because the Hun will keep hounding till she loses her government pension.
She should give the proceeds of her book to charity because it is not likely to be very much – unless the Hun’s relentless publicity turns the book into a best seller.
I remember a senior colleague telling me that, if you showed the directors the plan for a new concentrator “they would spend a lot of time talking about the toilets because that was the only thing that they had experience with.” The Black Saturday commission and the associated media reports reminded me of this.
LP ran a post last year on the Black Saturday commission report that started with an ABC report. The comment at the end of the LP post was:
My take is that if the police dept’s major fire disaster plan depended on Christine Nixon being in contact all the time the plan would have been a flawed plan. I would also comment that managing fatigue needs to be part of any plan for emergencies that may last for more than half a day.
To the best of my knowledge there was never any suggestion that the police failed in their duty during the fire let alone that some problem would have been averted if Nixon had not had her pub meal.
The question that really needed to be asked is whether it is appropriate to let lawyers run commissions into issues they have no experience in. I remember well the investigation into the major Vic gas disaster concluding that “the control room operators needed more training.” I have operated control rooms when things are going wrong – depending on a control room operator to twig when something happens that has not happened since a plant was built is crazy.
Fatigue Management?:
Going to the pub,
Hairdresser appointment,
Meeting with biographer.
Definitely Not. Next excuse please.
SATP,
At least get the events in the right order – there was hairdressing appointment before she went in to the Crisis Management Centre, a meeting with her ghost writer while she was on deck in the centre and then the infamous dinner at the pub (first leaked to The Hun as a scurrilous rumour that she was actually at home celebrating her retirement).
Hehe, rightio.
Her supporters didn’t do her cause much good by saying things like she had to go to the pub because she had to eat which is obviously not true – what did other people who did have to be present do? Emergency services would most likely have prepared plans for bringing in food, but where I’ve had to work in unusually long hours because of emergencies (business related, not life threatening related) the three most important things managers can do is
1) Get out of the way
2) Protect you from other people wanting your time so you can do your job
3) Make sure things like food and drink are provided so you can concentrate on what you have to do
For some of those things it means management being physically nearby even if they are doing nothing most of the time is really handy.
And I’d agree that for whatever reason in this case she missed the bit about a leader by the public to be present is important to retain confidence. For similar reasons that leaders return from holidays when natural disasters occur. Its not like they are going to do anything they couldn’t have done remotely but being seen to be around is in important initself.
Hasn’t done Colin Barnett any harm that he waddled off to Tuscany while there were floods and bushfires in WA.
Or Mitch Williams who couldn’t be bothered to interrupt his holiday in Darwin to inspect the damage and comfort his constituents after Penola was hit by a tornado. And he would have remained conspicuous by his absence had Mike Rann not ordered him back
Oh of course, Barnett and Williams are Liberal politicians, so that’s OK then. Leadership not required.
The politics of being seen was Brumby’s job, not Nixons. Besides, I thought Black Saturday was about a big fire, not a police emergency.
The story about directors being able to talk about toilets is the real reason for the fuss.
jane @ 86 – I don’t know about Colin Barnett, but I do remember Mitch Williams getting a lot of criticism on radio and in the papers over his failure to return to his electorate. Will have to wait till the next election to see how much of an effect it has.
John D – Wasn’t Nixon the deputy coordinator? And surely the police would have had a big role to play those days as well even though it was a bushfire emergency?
Senior public service positions to have a political aspect to them these days. Especially when they are political appointees.
Chris, he did return but only after getting a serve from Rann, who had immediately gone to see the damage for himself and to assess how much funding would be needed to repair the damage.
However, he was castigated for his troubles, and was accused of just being after photo opportunities for doing his job.