The treatment of Peta Credlin and Tony Abbott in Niki Savva’s book has been reprehensible. You would think that by now we could reasonably expect a serious analysis of the Abbott government and its strengths and weaknesses, for it would be a very strange government if it did not have some of both and we should never shy away from serious analysis of either, even if it means criticism. Instead, all that we have got from Ms Savva is a collection of gossip and scuttlebutt, a lot of it allegedly from sources who are such cowards that they will not even put their names to it. That should give us a pretty good guide to how much credence we should give it: none.

There are also some more serious points that emerge from the way this book has been put together. First, as well as the anonymous cowards, it relies on a few former staffers who are not anonymous, but who have put their names to their criticism of Abbott and Credlin. But the behaviour of these named sources is just as bad as the conduct of the unnamed ones. We hear a lot these days about conventions in politics and how the system depends on them to function. One of these conventions, as in all forms of employment, is that what happens in the office stays in the office. In other words, what you learn on the job is received on trust, should be held on trust and should not be revealed when you leave, whether you are a failed or disgruntled employee or not.

As part of that convention, it is accepted by everyone as part of civilised conduct, particularly in the hot house of a political office where pressures and temptations are great, that you will see human behaviour generated by the urgency and importance of the work which may not be as genteel as you would like. But you still receive it on trust and when it relates to colleagues who may have years of a professional career ahead of them, you keep it in trust and do not abuse them or the trust you have been given.

Then we come to the sanction that applies if you cannot keep your mouth shut. You can engage in scuttlebutt if you wish and reveal what happened in the office and you can even exaggerate or lie about it, which is what I suspect has happened here, but if you do so, people are entitled to conclude that you cannot be trusted and have no sense of honour. This then, is the lesson for the big mouths who have revealed their selective version of what happened in Abbott’s office: you have done enormous damage to the institution in which you worked, the individuals involved and to yourselves. The message to those who might be thinking of putting any of these so-called sources in a position of trust: don’t; if you do, get a tape recorder.

In this sordid collection of pimps and gossip-mongers, there is a special place for Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, a Minister in Turnbull’s government. It is she, you will recall, who volunteered to Ms Savva that she had confronted Credlin and Abbott about their alleged affair. It may be that she, the senator, had heard this alleged rumour ( I had not, and I doubt whether many people outside the Canberra bubble had heard it), but by revealing her conversation, it gave the superficial justification to Ms Savva to peddle dirt against the former prime minister and Credlin, a staff member who was entitled to privacy.

At the least, Ms Credlin was entitled to get her denial on the record at the same time as the book was published. To deny her – and to deny Mr Abbott that opportunity means that the initial damage is done, the idea is implanted in the public mind that the affair took place and any denial after the publication is weakened. This is grossly unfair to both Abbott and Credlin as it would be to any citizen, and especially to anyone in the public eye. So the author of the book and the author of the public disclosure should both be condemned.

Not only is it common decency and fairness to provide an opportunity to reply to criticism before a book or article is published, but it also happens to be the code of ethics to which journalist are supposed to subscribe and keep telling us they do. It also happens to be the law. The journalist’s code of ethics in Australia says ‘Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply’. The UK equivalent is: ‘Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.’ They are both unequivocal. Ms Savva did neither. She resorted to the nonsense that the poor ex-staffers had suffered in silence and deserved to have their stories aired and that she would not believe any response from Abbott anyway.

What a devious excuse for a flagrant breach of the code of ethics and the notion of a fair go. The High Court has said the same on several occasions. Where, then, is the journalists’ union and why does it not rebuke this breach of its code of ethics? Where, by the way, is the Prime Minister’s statement rebutting this whole vulgar exercise, its content and the way it was carried out. Surely he does not pretend that it is acceptable that one of his ministers can reveal with impunity that she knowingly gave an excuse to a journalist to peddle dirt about his predecessor. When, also, can we expect the sisterhood to come to the defence of Ms Credlin and this traducing of her character? Or are they all so besotted by their hatred of Abbott that anything goes while he and anyone associated with him is being abused?