Just imagine for one moment that the identity of Christian Porter was transformed into that of a Labor Minister. How do you think the Murdoch media would react?
Well, let me tell you. The Australian, Sky News, The Herald Sun and other news outlets (where the truth goes to die) are completely ignoring the issue of where the money come from to pay Porter’s bills, and that parliamentary standards are worsening under this Government.
It is like they take delight in the destruction of those things necessary to make our democracy work.
After seeing Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce speak to the press yesterday, I can only say that his predecessor, as forgettable as he was, at least spoke English. At this press conference, he seemed overly intent on reminding people that he was the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. That he was unintelligible at times seemed to escape him, as did his case for forgiving Christian Porter and reinstating him in the ministry after a short period in purgatory.
How ridiculous is his argument when the man faces accusations of rape? (He firmly denies this). Porter, according to Joyce, hadn’t broken any laws and deserves a place in the ministry because he has a brain. As if conscience, ethics and morality have no place in a person’s character. Efforts to set up a Senate inquiry into Porter’s fitness for office have been frequently blocked by the Coalition and One Nation.
As we all know, the best way to bury a report is to hand ball it to the head of the Prime Ministers Department and Cabinet, Phil Gaetjens who has proven to be remarkably successful on buying time or taking the heat off (think Sports Rorts and Brittany Higgins).
The government seems to think that this notation to the current rules gives them an out. They exploit this loophole:
“No form can cover all possible circumstances, and members should consequently bear in mind the purpose and spirit of the return in deciding which matters should be registered.”
After all, Joyce himself declared a private charter flight in May of this year, and he didn’t report who provided the gift. There are many such examples.
However, one must wonder if Joyce learned anything from his time in the sinner’s dwelling. That being that there may be ways around rules but getting past public opinion is another thing.
Those in the middle of the two parties who are “pub test” types; the twenty or so per cent who decide an election… well, they are demanding politicians have a modem of transparency, honesty, trustworthiness and accountability. They don’t forgive easily.
In an article for The Guardian written by Paul Karp, he quotes Barrister Anthony Whealy QC, of the Centre for Public Integrity chair and former assistant commissioner to ICAC. He told Guardian Australia the view that details of the donor were not required for the register of interests is “not justifiable.”
The rules seem to be about as ambiguous as those for Aussie rules football.
“The purpose of the requirement is transparency: to ensure there is not a conflict of interest or the possibility of a perception of a conflict,” he said.
“Unless you know the source of the gift or money that’s been received you can’t possibly form an opinion about it.
“Once you have that purpose in your mind it is clear that it is never sufficient to say ”I did receive money, but I won’t won’t say how much or who from”. That cannot possibly satisfy the criterion of transparency or revealing the conflict.”
Are the public now expected to believe that because of these words (repeat), all parliamentarians have a way out of not revealing sensitive information that the public has a right to know about? If Porter can get away with this, what sort of precedent does it set for the future.
Karp continues:
“No form can cover all possible circumstances, and members should consequently bear in mind the purpose and spirit of the return in deciding which matters should be registered.”
The public’s right to know is sacrosanct, or should be. When a political party deliberately withholds information, the voter needs to make an informed, balanced and reasoned assessment about its being governed. It is lying by omission, and it is also equivalent to the manipulation of our democracy.
By the end of its third term, the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Governments will have provided enough scandal to keep a form of National ICAC in business for another three.
Those in the front bar at your local pub – after a few quiet ales – would be pondering such things as:
- The public is entitled to know where this money comes from, and if he doesn’t disclose it, he is deliberately concealing the source from us.
- Most reasonable people condone this sort of behaviour by politicians. Porter, unless he hands the money back, can only be judged to be a shyster.
- He still has to answer questions like when and how did he first learn about the money. Where did it appear, who gave the trust his bank details, and of course has he taken any steps to find out about its origins. Why is he taking the money with such little knowledge of who the donor is? Is he certain there are no strings attached? Can he be sure the money isn’t from a foreign government?
Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese has some questions of his own:
“Questions of how much money was put into this fund? How did people know to put money into this fund? Who was it who contributed funds for Christian Porter’s legal case? All of these questions remain outstanding,” he said.
Christian Porter may have stepped down as a minister, but he's still a member of parliament, and we cannot have members of parliament accepting anonymous donations of cash. Scott Morrison has failed another test of his leadership. pic.twitter.com/TqfgxiHbjH
— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) September 20, 2021
And the Prime Minister needs to convince the public that there is no security risk. How will he do this? And most importantly, how are we to know that money given under these circumstances isn’t offered with ulterior motives.
Can he give these assurances despite having in his ministry some of the most devious, suspicious and corrupt men and women in Parliament?
When the Parliament resumes, it seems inevitable that Labor will refer the matter to the House of Representatives standing committee on privileges or potentially a censure motion.
We need to keep in mind here that it is no more acceptable for a member of Parliament to keep a donation secret than for a minister to keep a donation secret. That the Murdoch media could treat such damaging affronts to our democracy with such impertinence is appalling.
You can imagine the uproar if this happened under a Labor government.
My thought for the day
Lying in the media is wrong at any time; however, it is even more so when they do it by deliberate omission. Murdoch’s papers seem to do it with impunity.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
