NSW opposition leader John Brogden won’t say what he did to earn $25,000 a year for several years from a big-four accounting firm while supposedly representing the people (for the background see Pocket politics: it’s about who’s in whose pocket, webdiaryNov14).
His defence is the one most often used by desperate men – to divert attention from the substance by questioning the motivation of your accuser. Brogden is right to say his problem is handy for a Labor government mired in corruption allegations, but the fact remains that there are matters of substance Brogden must answer satisfactorily if he is to rescue his shattered reputation.
This is what Brogden told Parliament last week during the censure motion against him for failing to detail how he earned his money from PriceWaterhouse:
“The Government wants to know the details of the relationship…no letter of engagement was signed; a verbal agreement was entered into regarding a monthly retainer that could be cancelled by either party on one month’s notice. That is a standard arrangement…
“It is incumbent upon the Government to prove what it is yet to prove: that there is any conflict of interest. It has failed to do so; it is throwing mud, but it is not sticking. … As I indicated in the letter to the Clerk, the advice received from PricewaterhouseCoopers was that I provided general public affairs advice upon request. I move:
“That the motion be amended by deleting all words after “censure” with a view to inserting the following words: ‘the Premier for his failure to stand down the Minister for Fisheries (Eddie Obeid) after serious allegations that he sought a $1 million bribe for the Australian Labor Party and for his failure to uphold parliamentary standards of propriety and integrity with other Ministers and members of Parliament.’
Government members are trying to throw mud this way when one of their own is facing the Independent Commission Against Corruption on one of the most serious accusations this State has heard: that he asked for a $1 million bribe.
The Sydney Morning Herald of Friday 8 November ran the headline, “Million on the table at Oasis lunch”. Two witnesses have already indicated to the ICAC that Mr Arthur Coorey came to them at a lunch, where he had been with Eddie Obeid, who had asked for a $1 million bribe to smooth the Oasis project. Under pressure, the Labor Party tries to turn the attack and avoid the fact that after eight years in government it had in Cabinet a rotten, corrupt Minister whose history on matters of arson would suggest that he should be on the New South Wales Fire Brigade’s watch list. The claim against Eddie Obeid is that there are 154 separate failed declarations on his pecuniary interests register. And where does it end? It ends in the ICAC. Two witnesses have indicated to an ICAC investigation that Mr Arthur Coorey came to them at a lunch and said, “I have just been with Eddie, and he said $1 million dollars will smooth it all over.” What a coincidence! It is just like the good old days of the Labor Party. They cannot help themselves.
The old Wran problem of 1983 has come back to haunt them again. It is all too cute. For the 2002 season Labor has crippled one of the best rugby league teams in this State through its corruption and through the involvement of Eddie Obeid in seeking a $1 million bribe. The ICAC will bear out the truth. An article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald reads:
The former Bulldogs Leagues Club chief, Gary McIntyre, has confirmed he discussed a $1 million political donation to the ALP with fellow director Arthur Coorey, but said it occurred in a discussion on how the hotel industry had achieved such favourable treatment from the Carr Government.
What the Government has sought to do over some time is pretend that this is all about poker machines, when it has always been about land and about forcing a decision. Half of the members of the front bench have been involved in briefings – including the Minister for Transport, the Attorney General, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the Minister for Agriculture and, of course, the Minister for Public Works and Services. We all recall that he went very red and was very quiet when the questioning started.
They will all rue the day. In one day, at the request of this House, I have provided more information than Eddie Obeid offered to the upper House privilege and ethics committee. He obfuscated; he refused to provide information. The fact is that the Obeid matter is wide and deep, and it goes to the core of corruption in this Government. The Labor Party is the party of corruption in New South Wales, and it always has been. The Government’s grubby attempt today to censure me – with three to four sitting days left this year and four months until the election – is entirely predictable. But in four months time the people of New South Wales will make a decision based on who can better run our schools, who can make our streets safer, and who can provide better health care and transport services in this State. These grubby attempts by the Government will be forgotten because they are unproved and they are lies, lies, lies from Labor.
***
Oh dear. Dear John, when a perceived conflict of interest is revealed, it’s the duty of the person whose credibility is in question to show there is NOT a conflict of interest, not for others without the information – which happens to be in your possession, not theirs – to prove you’re guilty. Just as it’s your POSITIVE duty to transparently disclose financial arrangements, not hide behind technicalities to avoid disclosure of where your money’s coming from as you did with your PriceWaterhouse windfall. It’s called transparency. It’s called taking your obligations to the people seriously.
I can see two reasons why Brogden won’t say what he did for his $25,000 a year. He either did stuff that would be tricky to explain, or he did nothing. I reckon the likelihood is that he did nothing, which is worse, in a sense, than giving special help to his private sector employer while employed to work full time for his constituents in particular and the people of NSW in general.
Money for nothing would mean Brogden had sold his name, his “brand” in the parlance of sports stars, for a mere $25,000 a year. Too cheap, John. Way too cheap. (A ‘gift’ from the big firm might also raise tax deductibility questions, as John Brogden is not a charity.)
The gift could be a nice little deal among the Liberal mates to look after John Brogden financially on the way to the leadership, or it might mean the odd attendance at a cocktail party. The value for Price Waterhouse is to enhance the status of its brand – it knows the right people.
It’s sort of like Mark Waugh and Shane Warne taking cash from bookie for a pitch report. No worries in that, except that you do end up owing something, somehow, someday. John Brogden, Premier, would answer the door to Price Waterhouse, you’d think, and give them his time, at the very least.
Brogden is damaged goods, all the more galling for him and the Liberals because he was well into a brilliant long-term campaign to win government on the back of Labor’s unholy, unhealthy alliance with developers. Labor’s relentless attack on Brogden last week was about making him look as dirty as it does, thus neutralising development and general back-scratching between Labor and Sydney’s money-men as an issue.
Bob Carr’s behaviour has been interesting. He didn’t lead the debate against Brogden, but left it to his deputy. I reckon this is because Carr still thinks he’s got political mileage left as a ‘clean’ leader – the bloke who doesn’t get his hands dirty. To maintain this crazy farce – doesn’t being the leader mean the buck stops with you? – he can’t be in Parliament taking the flak for his constant, complete backing of Eddie Obeid despite his flagrant failures to disclose his financial interests and private companies, and his refusal to stand Obeid down while serious allegations of corruption concerning him are aired at the ICAC.
Instead, Bob Carr comes out on the weekend announcing he’ll ban “sponsorship” deals of politicians:
Mr Carr said private companies or corporations should not be allowed to sponsor their “favourite MP”, and this was effectively what Mr Brogden’s $25,000-a-year consultancy with the legal arm of the global firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, represented. He warned that if the practice was allowed to continue, it could degenerate into MPs of either side announcing sponsorships by ‘big mining companies’.
Mr Carr said the issue was no longer an argument about pecuniary interests. “I’m determined to nip in the bud any notion that might linger out there … that politicians of either side that you can be engaged as consultant on public policy,” he said.
“The role of a Member of Parliament is public policy. It is advice on public policy. That is the role of the Member of Parliament. But to enter a non-specific relationship with a private company and its clients. To get paid for advice on public policy. Now that is fundamentally wrong.”
Mr Carr said he would not pursue a ban on politicians having second jobs, arguing that might preclude farmers or lawyers or small business people from pursuing political careers.
The debate should be about whether the practice in which companies put MPs on the payroll should be allowed.
This could gradually become the norm, he said. “You could have an MP sponsored by a big PR and lobbying firm, an MP sponsored by a big merchant bank an MP sponsored by the advertising companies,” he said.
“And not far behind, you would have mining companies and infrastructure companies. It is intolerable. One way or another, I will get it ruled out.”
Mr Carr said he would ask Cabinet Office to investigate amendments to the legislation banning MPs from such agreements, or perhaps investigating whether any similar business relationship involving an MP should require a contract.
“There is too much obfuscation going on,” he said. (The Herald last Saturday)
Where does Bob Carr get off? Notice he’s careful not to mention sponsorship by developers. When Paul Keating and Frank Sartor suggested in strong terms last year that developers be banned from donating to political parties, Carr said it couldn’t be done except on a national level, because if he banned it in NSW, money would come in from interstate. The same reasoning applies to the sponsorship scandal. The Victorian branch of Price Waterhouse could pay Brogden.
In reality, the solution is clear, on both counts. Make it an offence for a NSW politicians or the NSW Branch of any political party to RECEIVE a donation from a developer or sponsorship money of any sort. Then it wouldn’t matter where it came from.
One thing is certain. The NSW election in March will be very dirty, very bitter, and generally rancid. Stand by for sensational revelations in the Herald tomorrow about a senior NSW Labor figure.
Carr might think that exposing Brogden as just another compromised man-about-town will neutralise corruption and Labor coziness with developers as an issue. It’s a standard political tactic – when your party’s caught looking bad, ensure the other party is exposed as bad as well. No election issue on that, so diffferentiation must occur on safer ground.
But what say people finally feel enough’s enough and curse both houses by putting in community independents or Greens? These plays are settling into place right now on the ground, using the template of Cunningham. It’s happening in Labor and Liberal seats, where both major party candidates aren’t trusted, aren’t good enough, have identikit views (especially on development) or don’t respect their community enough to live in it.
The double wedge play relies on voters not “exhausting” – ie only voting for one candidates and leaving all other boxes blank – but cross preferencing.
Say you’re in a safe Liberal seat. The Greens put up a solid community candidate who attracts about 10% on anti-development feeling. A well known conservative local with a strong with a strong pro-community stand on local development stands, getting 25% The Greens and the independent have enough in common on hot local issues to agree to swap preferences. With this left-right wedge in place, the Liberal MP’s vote collapses to 30% and Labor’s to 35%. The Greens candidate goes out first, putting the independent on 35%. The MP goes out, and his preferences elect the independent!
For this play to work, as it did so well in Cunningham, you need a strong, activist local community whose denizens talk across partisan political lines. You also need hot issues which unite the left and the right. Untrammelled development is one. Integrity in politics is another.
If this play looks like it will work, we’ll start to see the major parties closing ranks and actually preferencing each other in certain seats – Labor/Liberal preference deals – to ensure their hegemony remains intact. Which is what they did with One Nation, in essence. But wouldn’t it look bad, and wouldn’t it make voters wonder what their major parties really stood for, apart from power?
You’ll recall that we had a discussion on ethics recently: See Ethics, webdiarySep9, Your ethics, webdiarySep10, The pursuit of virtue, webdiarySep13. I agree with Webdiarist Noel Hadjimichael that “If the Liberals want to be fair dinkum about transparency and governance they need to look at this issue as a priority. If Labor want to clear the decks before March 2002 they need to act now, before further ICAC time elapses. The major parties dominate only when voters are broadly accepting of their fitness to govern and their preparedness to take tough decisions.”
I doubt if either party would be game, even if either wanted to, to promise to clean up politics. That leaves the media as representative of the people on this one.
I suggest that each local paper around the state questions all relevant candidates in its local seat on ethics and publish the answers or refusals to answer. Anyone know of a pro forma questionnaire that would do the job? It would ask whether the candidate would earn all his or her income from the job of politician if elected, and if not, what other income would be earned and how would actual or perceived conflicts of interest be avoided. If elected, what would the candidate put on his or her pecuniary register if he or she wished to fully inform their constituents of their assets and income – ie wished to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Would the candidate guarantee not to participate in debates where he or she had a personal financial interest in the outcome?
Most importantly, I’d like to see questions along these lines: What does the word “ethics” mean to you? What do you believe would be your ethical duties to this community if its voters chose you as their representative? How do you intend to fulfil those duties?”
Finally, a word on the former Victorian Liberal treasury spokesman, Robert Dean. Buried beneath the rubble of his career is the smell of deliberate misrepresentation to his voters. Dean faced a tough preselection battle for the seat of Berwick. To avoid accusations that he didn’t live in the electorate, he rented a place there. He won’t say whether he ever lived there, but he did enrol as living there. We do know returned to the much more leafy suburb of Hawthorn, outside his electorate, once he won the preselection, and not only didn’t change his enrolment, but told his Party when asked that he was enrolled in Berwick still. The truth, before the Electoral Commission threw him off the roll when it became clear he wasn’t living there, but a lie to the electoral commission that Berwick was his residential address.
I’ve been amazed that media coverage has portrayed this tactic as smart politics, and that his stupidity was in not doing the paperwork right. You have to wonder whose side some journalists are on. What Dean did was lie to his voters. He lied because voters want their MP to live in their community, because his or her job is to represent that community. He perpetrated the lie when he told his Party he was enrolled Why would he, or anyone else, WANT to live elsewhere? I’d would have thought it would be a matter of great pride to be elected to represent your community. How can you do that if you don’t live there and experience it on a daily basis? Dean’s behaviour is just the latest example of the big con many major party politicians engage in. They’re in politics for themselves. That’s all.
John Howard’s response? Nothing, except that it was “yesterday’s story”. When will a political leader have the guts to call a spade a spade and condemn MPs in their party who think nothing of cheating their voters and demeaning themselves – all for the sake of NOT living in the area they represent? When voters punish them until they do.
***
Harry Heidelberg (nom de plume)
We now live in an environment where we are justified in being ferocious on ethics and disclosure. Too much has been done and too many people have been harmed to have anything other than a zero tolerance attitude. We need ethics champions in our society. If we don’t, the downward spiral will continue. The disconnect and discontent will simmer on, perhaps with the temperature gradually increasing. No wonder boiling point is reached from time to time and the electorate explodes in anger.
Some large businesses know and understand the new environment. They don’t just give it lip service, they recognize it as an asset. I work for a well known, large US listed company. It is not a company that has been involved in any scandal to date and desperately wants to avoid such a situation.
I am learning more and more about my company and its plans to institute a whistle blowing procedure. It’s better than I thought. All employees will have access to a third party who can be contacted regarding ethical matters. Privacy will be protected and there will be a process to ensure action is taken and disclosure of the action made. I think it’s going to be quite revolutionary in the corporate world.
What about Brogden though? He can’t be an ethics champion. He can’t be part of a modern movement to throw away the bad old ways, because He can no longer be trusted, due to inadequate disclosure and involvement in a deal he should never, ever have allowed himself to be associated with. Am I alleging any wrongdoing in fact? No. I am alleging poor judgement and a failure to recongnise the impact on perceptions his actions would create.
I end up feeling bemused at the stupidity of our elected representatives. For many $25,000 a year is a lot of money. Particularly for those receiving benefits or whatever. For Brogden though, I would suspect such an amount makes no material difference to his life. You have to figure that half of it would have gone in tax so the end amount in his pocket would hardly have made him rich.
This is where the stupidity, the duplicity and all the reasons we hate politicians comes in. It is like Reith and the Telecard. This sort of behavior is so unnecessary and so infuriating.
Why is it infuriating? It is because it is an example of someone selling their name and reputation cheaply. A man who could have changed Liberal politics becomes a man diminished in reputation.
Its only perception but people will wonder. What does the deal with PWC say about Brogden, what implications did it have?
If he wanted to swan around at cocktail parties and get to know the movers and shakers, well and good. Networking and all the rest of it should be part of politics. A beer here, a glass of wine there, a canape somewhere else, well and good. But money changing hands? I think not.
I’m not always comfortable with business donating to political parties and I am even less comfortable with a direct payment to a politician. I am actually quite sure it is all above board but it just sounds so shabby and unfortunate.
Indeed, he sells himself and his party short …. and in the process we are all cheapened.
It also cheapens his appeal and makes us listen less. He marketed himself as some kind of new Liberal. Modern, open, pragmatic, socially responsible, inclusive and all the rest of it.
Now I have an image of a man who would hold a glass of fine wine on the 22nd floor of the PwC building or similar, looking out at the sun setting on the Western Suburbs, hermetically sealed, cosy, comfortable and complacent. The setting may be modern but the mind set is outdated (at best).
Therein lies the disappointment. He’s not in tune with the times. This is a terrible shame because he seemed so promising.