 |
| Serenade with a drunken assassin. Image by Webdiary artist Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com |
G’Day. It’s been yet another frenzied, feverish week in Australian politics, where dots continue to be joined and political certainties continue to unravel. The aspect I’m working on – the Tony Abbott slush fund – has entered a digging-in phase. There’s been a few developments which I’ll report to you in another entry – today’s Webdiary is dedicated to your input and my responses to your questions and criticisms. Sorry I’m so far behind on reader emails – there’s a lot going on. Long time Webdiarists Robert Lawton and Hamish Tweedy reckon I’m on the wrong track with Abbott, and Robert also reckons Webdiary’s going in the wrong direction. My response has turned into an essay, so I’ll publish their critiques and my response in another entry. Otherwise, I’m drawing a line under Abbott emails sent to date, so if I’ve missed a corker please resend.
The SMH online now has an Abbott slush fund archive.
The Age political correspondent Annabel Crabb reported this week that Hanson could stand for political office once she gets out of jail even if her appeal against her conviction for fraud fails. That’s come as a big surprise to the government. See Hanson still has future in politics.
I’m still working on a list of questions to send Mr Abbott in the light of More questions for Abbott on honest politics trust and his response to that piece, Dear Margo …. Tony Abbott writes. In response to my request for reader’s questions, Mike Mackay suggests: “Why did he repeatedly tell Parliament recently that Wilson Tuckey was a ‘fine Australian’?”
Marilyn Shepherd’s questions are:
* Was John Howard or any member of his family a contributor?
* If yes, is that why Abbott won’t come clean?
* Is any member of the executive of the Liberal party a donor?
* If yes, who?
* Is any current member of the parliament for the National or Liberal party a donor?
* If yes, who?
* How much did each member of parliament give?
* What did they understand the fund was for?
* Did any donors/contributors understand that people could be put in prison?
* Did any donors/contributors believe it was a Liberal party fund?
***
Pascal Grosvenor
Margo, I’m pleased to see you naming the spokesmen for Abbott and for the AEC. Hopefully other journalists will start doing the same, then these spokespeople/spin doctors might start feeling some of the pressure personally and it will be harder for ministers, departments, etc to hide behind them.
***
Geoff Eagar
I have been a long time reader of Webdiary. Recently you published a request from a reader to reduce the political content of your site which prompted you to invite contributions from us on the theme of new directions.
I thought about this, and your job description as political online editor seemed an obstacle. Yet I must confess to feeling a little jaded with the constant stridency and intellectual conceit of many of the contributions published, however much I agreed with the sentiment. What really dismayed me was the fact that it was all talk. Lots of people seemed to have wonderful ideas about Reconciliation yet it seemed little more than talk. The chattering classes indeed.
Yet now I see a site where contributors have fired off letters to Justice Morling sparking action. A great start. But perhaps …
Howard criticises the judiciary’s activism – do we now have journalistic activism? I have no time for Minister Christ or his political God the Father who’s just been reported as having boastfully declared the History War’s over because noone’s asked Him for an Apology lately. But, journalistic activism? Is your site creating news? I hope you know what I’m getting at – Christ has created the story Himself of course, but how far can you go? If all the way, let’s go it then!
So for new directions, I’d like to nominate some journalistic activism be fired off on Reconciliation and the Apology, Aunty ABC, the environment, ending State Aid to private schools…..
***
Daniel Moye in Roseville, Sydney
In Who’s who in Abbott’s slush fund zoo Anthony Loewenstein asked the question whether Abbott was acting as a private individual or as a Liberal member? Surely it is almost impossible for a Minister of the Crown to act as a private individual in almost every circumstance. I would have thought, by definition, as a Minister of the Crown Abbott acts almost always as a public person. Surely there is only small and discreet examples where a Minister is not acting as a public person. Perhaps you could argue along those lines.
By the way, the last thing we need is Bob Carr in Canberra. He has even better spin than Howard.
***
Michael Hessenthaler
Hi Margo. I thought I’d pass on the reply from the AEC to my email on September 2 (first published in AEC claims secret political donations no business of voters).
Dear AEC
I am a customer of the AEC because I am an enrolled voter.
Could you please advise me on the status of your “further inquiries” in relation to the topical issue of Tony Abbott and your original decision that he did not have to comply with disclosure requirements pertaining to the Australians for Honest Politics Trust.
When do you envisage that you will, in accordance with your stated Corporate Goals, be transparent about the outcome of your inquiries?
Thanking you,
Regards
Michael Hessenthaler
*
AEC Reply, Sent: Tuesday, 9 September 2003 4:53 PM
Mr Hessenthaler,
Thank you for your e-mail below.
The AEC does not believe that Ms Margot Kingston’s article ‘Australian Electoral Commission in the Dock: Why won’t it come clean’ (Herald website, 1 September 2003) fully recognises the complexity of the issues surrounding this matter.
The AEC is committed to its core values of: independence and neutrality, integrity and accuracy, mutual respect, respect for the law, service and transparency. The AEC’s actions on this matter have been and continue to be fully consistent with these values.
However the AEC asks its clients to appreciate that in dealing with legislative compliance issues the AEC must give due regard to confidentiality. Unnecessary publicity may prejudice their further investigation.
The AEC has a policy of considering matters that are raised with it either directly or through public forums such as the media. The AEC treats these matters seriously and as such, must ensure that it deals with them in a consistent, considered and equitable manner.
Accordingly, the AEC does not offer comments on matters until it has had the opportunity to research and consider all information available and has come to an informed conclusion.
Kathy Mitchell
Director Funding & Disclosure
*
Michael had a strong response to my report of the interview I did with Tony Abbott on September 5 (Tony Abbott: No such thing as the public’s right to know):
Margo, whilst reading with trepidation your latest in SMH I was struck by something so obvious that I am ashamed not to have recognised it earlier – this fellow Abbott is NOT FRANK AND OPEN!
Perhaps I don’t deserve a reward for recognising the obvious. Perhaps we all think it, but I think it also needs to be addressed loud and clear with the sly politicians we have to suffer.
It struck me what a painstaking, drawn out process it is for you to have to analyse and triple-analyse everything Abbott is saying. You did some clever foot work and interviewing to get Abbott to slip on his own dirt and you laid it out so well for all us readers.
But why? Why should it have to be so painful?
As a factual investigator well versed in insurance policies and insurance law, I often faced tricky claimants trying to carefully word their answers (al la Abbott, Reith, Howard, etc) so that maybe, just maybe they can get away with their false claims. Some of them feel quite smug at how clever they are in the use of the English language.
I faced them with the obvious, that is written into law and into the policy (being a “contract” between two parties) – YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO BE FRANK AND OPEN. I explained to them that I am not paid to outsmart them with trick questions, that I don’t have to play cat and mouse games, but that they must tell me the information relevant to their claim in a frank and open manner. No misleading, not double-meaning terms, no reversing sentences, no struggling with “Oh God, what did I say 12 answers ago, will this fit in or can it be misconstrued and held against me” kind of stuff.
Given that we (stupidly) elected these people that lately give us indigestion, given that they made promises and presented themselves as nice and good people, they consequently now have the OBLIGATION to be frank and open, in the true meaning of the words, when answering our probing questions. No trick fancy contorted smart-mouthed smirking replies, but frank and open answers!
Isn’t it time we reminded Abbott, Howard, etc that we are not all stupid people and that we deserve to be treated like proper people, not like Silks fighting it out in the Supreme Court. We are not paid to play cat and mouse legal games and I don’t believe you should either have to play such tricky games with a basically dishonest, immoral and objectionable fellow like Tony Abbott.
If it’s good enough for insurance companies (and later courts) to knock back claims and even prosecute claimants for fraudulent actions, why should it not be good enough for the Abbotts of this world?
I do wish, Margo, that I had the opportunity to investigate an insurance claim made by Abbott.
***
Tim Gillin in Kensington, Sydney
I know the Abbott/Hanson thing has been done to death, and I certainly don’t regard Hanson as a political prisoner as per R.J. Stove’s recent article at vdare. Hanson and Ettridge did break the law and their sentence does seem more or less in line with other punishments handed out in similar cases.
But there is a difference. The other cases seem to have been genuine internal party disputes ultimately adjudicated by the courts. In this case a major party has egged on and subsidised an action by disgruntled members of a minority party against their own leadership. We need to be concerned about the precedent here, and how it affects the rules of democratic fair play.
When public funding of election campaigns was being advocated in the 1970s, its proponents saw it as a means of enhancing democracy by promoting a more level playing field. It looks like the playing field has evolved into a mine field, and the big boys encourage the new kids to play hopscotch there.
This time it is One Nation, next time it will probably be the Greens. Maybe it’s time public funding of election campaigns was ended before democracy gets hurt.
***
Humphrey Hollins in Perth
I have just asked my local member, Liberal MP Julie Bishop, for the second time to tell me the truth about Abbott’s activities.I asked who paid his fares to Queensland whilst stalking Hanson and also whether he was working in his ministerial or electorate time or during annual leave. She refused to answer and suggested that I ask Abbott. What has happened to our democracy when ones local member refuses to answer a question?
Margo: Julie’s no friend of Abbott. She’s a moderate, and a Costello supporter. She probably doesn’t want to waste her time defending Abbott’s activities.
***
Norm Martin
Margo, keep up your excellent coverage of this saga. I have a strong feeling you will eventually draw some blood. Indeed, there seems to be a lot of parallels here with the strange happenings in NSW in the 1980s. You recall the excesses of power of several politicians, magistrates, and police.
***
Stephen Feneley
Poor old Tony. It’s not like Tony was trying to bring down an ideological opposite. What we have here is a factional dispute. One of Tony’s loyal staff abandons him for Pauline, so Tony sets out to get even. Tony wasn’t opposed to Pauline and One Nation, he was just pissed off that she’d stolen not only a valuable staffer but also a lot of the right of centre political ground that Tony and Howard regarded as being rightly theirs. You can just imagine them screaming: HEY THAT BITCH HAS GONE AND STOLEN OUR FEARFUL WHITE SUPPORT BASE. IF SHE DOESN’T GIVE US BACK OUR RACISTS, WE’RE GUNNA FIX HER REAL GOOD.
And then they did.
***
Nick Smith in Newcastle
Margo, you have just made my day! I have been simmering at an unhealthy pre-steam level for ages now about this government I was fooled into helping elect. Imagine if all the lies they have been saying do make them accountable – what a twist that you can lie to Parliament, the Australian people, the ABC and the SMH but not the Public Service! Lie to the PS and feel the full weight of a criminal proceeding! YABADABADOO. Can’t wait to see them in the witness box. (See More questions for Abbott on honest politics trust.)
But hang on, who will prosecute? Thought it was too good to be true. Back to simmer level.
***
Michael Kennedy in Bringelly, NSW
In Tony Abbott: No such thing as the public’s right to know, Workplace Relations and Public Service Minister Tony Abbott argues that “I just believe private conversations should be private.”.
Yet the Minister has hired Nigel Hadgkiss, ex Wood Royal Commission investigator and Federal Police electronic eavesdropping expert. Hadgkiss is the manager of The Building Industry Commission Taskforce that came out of The Cole Royal Commission. There has already been allegations about the unauthorised monitoring of building industry ‘private conversations’. Perhaps the Minister should put his money where his managerialist microphone is.
Margo: Website Thomson Workforce reports:
Building taskforce head Nigel Hadgkiss has been forced to defend remarks he made in an April 8 presentation to Clayton Utz in a Senate estimates committee hearing this week. Hadgkiss came under fire from ALP senators Kim Carr, Penny Wong and Nick Sherry for making references to Baghdad and equating building industry participants with rape victims. Senator Carr said the CFMEU was incensed with comments the taskforce would be crossing the Yarra and heading up Swanston Street in Melbournes CBD. The unions Victorian branch is located on the street, but Hadgkiss said there were also a number of building sites on it. “It also [includes] the town hall, but I was not trying to offend the mayor of Melbourne,” Hadgkiss told the committee. He said his comment that “tanks would be entering the city” was made in a moment of levity and was aimed at employers, not unions. The ex-NCA director said the culture of the building industry had similar characteristics to the “world of organised crime”, and some participants were “extremely frightened”. He said that like to rape victims, these were “people who will not come forward and need to have their hands held to go through the fairly traumatic experience known as the justice system”. He defended the taskforce against accusations of bias. “I have said time and time again that we are not about bashing unions,” he told the senators, pointing out that a number of current investigations were against employers.
***
Jill Whittaker
I found this reported in the Christchurch press:
PARIS: Australia will take a leading role as the United States and 10 allies step up plans to intercept ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction despite a warning from China that the move could be illegal.
Then I come to the Sydney Morning Herald where Tony Abbott thinks it is OK for those seeking Honest Politicians to hide like dishonest men and that there are some things the public doesn’t need to know. Obviously Tony Abbott and John Howard don’t want Australians to feel that Australia is a more dangerous place because of their actions so have decided to leave us uninformed on the new risks they are exposing us to.
***
Hamish Tweedy
Margo, is Jack Robertson’s point in Permission to lie from the print press quislings that:
* the court got it wrong and there was no fraud committed;
* politicians shouldn’t expose fraud because although uncharged they are guilty of fraud themselves;
* the Liberal Party shouldn’t expose fraud because it was self-serving for them to do so as they have adopted Pauline’s policies for themselves;
* big parties exposing fraud only further alienates people already disillusioned with the political process; or
* all four?
I’m afraid it still doesn’t make sense to me.
And finally why do you need to know the names of the donors? For instance, would it be sufficient for the AEC to confirm that the Liberal Party wasn’t one of the donors or do you need the names and addresses of the people who contributed to AHP? If having forced either the AEC or Tony Abbott into betraying assurances of anonymity, will you then publish the names and addresses and if so for what purpose?
Margo: Hi Hamish. Perhaps Jack can answer your first set of questions? Re donor disclosure, the Australian Parliament passed laws designed to create transparency of political donations so the Australian people are fully informed about who’s backing who when casting their vote. Prima facie the HPT looks like an ‘associated entity’ of the Liberal Party, meaning donor disclosure is required. That’s why the AEC wrote to Abbott requesting donor disclosure when it read about the HPT in the newspapers.
The big parties try all sorts of legal tricks to avoid their disclosure obligations to the Australian people. The AEC’s job is to try to enforce the law and discourage donor disclosure avoidance. The AEC is the enforcer of political donor disclosure on behalf of voters just like the Australian Tax Office is the enforcer of everyone paying their fair share of tax on behalf of the Australian people. The ATO is the representative of taxpayers, seeking a fair share of tax to raise the money to look after our defence, security, services and welfare. The AEC is the representative of Australian voters, seeking to keep the electoral system fair and transparent on their behalf. Because rich and powerful people try to avoid their tax and disclosure obligations, the AEC and the ATO must be vigilant to ensure that the law works to the limit of its capacity against avoidance mechanisms.
As you’ll see from my interview with Abbott at Tony Abbott: No such thing as the public’s right to know, he did not guarantee confidentiality to his donors. If the donors are disclosed then I would publish the names and quantum of the donations they made. That’s what transparency is about.
***
KylieAnn Scott in Haberfield, Sydney
I couldn’t agree more with Jack Robertson’s comments about the media coverage of the Hanson issue missing the point. Even the illustrious Phillip Adams really let his listeners down the other night with his discussion with Paul Bonjiorno about the Pauline Hanson issue. I now understand why it is called ‘Canberra Babylon’ because it is covered by old time dinosaurs.
Even Phillip missed the point, missed the story. It is not about us all feeling sorry for Pauline about the fraud and the 500k, it is about the blatant disregard that Howard and Abbott have for the people of Australia by thinking that they know what is best for us and undermining the democratic process (if you could call it that) in this country. That is what will be remembered, the Underhanded Undemocratic Undermining of our right to choose for ourselves which party and policies we want to vote for in an Election.
I wonder what kind of funds have been established against other little independents and minor parties. A former National Party member turned independent comes to mind.
The Labor and Liberal Party machines and their ambitions to wipe out other parties and thus silence alternative policies and ideas has to be exposed, and the people providing fuel for these machine have to be exposed. We need to revisit just what DEMOCRACY really means for each Australian again.
No wonder both Howard and Crean’s popularity plummeted last week. We Australians don’t like either of them.
***
Malcolm B. Duncan in Sydney, a lawyer
I know to my considerable personal cost the effect of litigation in the political arena. See Duncan v Moore [1999] NSWLEC 170; [1999] NSWLEC 152; [2000] NSWLEC 64. Nevertheless, it is sometimes necessary to resort to the law to affect political behaviour for the better.
While making no difference to the Labor [sic] Party, the Liberals or the Greens, my actions at least stopped Clover Moore from erecting campaign posters in Bligh at the last NSW State Election in contravention of NSW laws (until the night before the election anyway).
As to the contribution of electoral law lecturer Mr Tham in When litigation’s just another way to play politics, he and most legal commentators miss the point about the Hanson matter. The real question is whether Abbott’s indemnity for Sharples’ finding himself the subject of a costs order (and he did) constitutes either Champerty or Maintenance. Arguably it does. (See Hanson to sue Abbott?)
The gravamen of that is that they both breach the common law. That would lead to a question of when and where the offer was made, because Champerty and Maintenance have been abolished in NSW and some other states.
Nevertheless, there is Federal Court authority for the proposition that public policy would still prevent someone maintaining another person’s action for a collateral purpose.
The question then moves to whether a member of parliament (who also has a law degree) is a fit and proper person to continue to sit when he takes action which he knows or ought to know is contrary to public policy. If the Prime Minister, also a lawyer, knew of the scheme, he might be drawn into the same quagmire.
Let them contemplate that as the NSW Legislative Council debates the fate of the hapless Mr Malcolm Jones.
Margo: The Australian Financial Review’s legal editor Chris Merritt recently proved that Abbott is aware of the law on Maintenance and Champerty. Here is the text of a piece in his ‘Hearsay’ column:
Until this week’s debate about Tony Abbott’s involvement in encouraging litigation, very few people would have been aware that in some jurisdictions, this can amount to the ancient torts of champerty and maintenance. But Abbott should have known something.
On April 4, 2001, the Workplace Relations Minister answered a question in parliament concerning legal advice on the subject of champerty. While both champerty and maintenance aim to prevent people from encouraging litigation in which they have no interest, champerty is directed at cases that result in a pecuniary benefit for the tortfeasor. Maintenance requires no such benefit.
Abbott replied to a question on notice by reading a statement that had been made by his predecessor, Peter Reith. He quoted Reith as saying: “My department further advises that the funding of one party to take forward the legal action on behalf of another party could appear to be an example of champerty – the illegal sharing in the proceeds of litigation by one who promotes it, or where one party gets direct benefit from legal action undertaken on its behalf by another.
***
Herbert Thornton
The more I read about the dubious legitimacy of the slush fund to attack Pauline Hanson, the more I get the impression that there has been, among various people involved in the fund – and even in the AEC – a consensus (nudge wink) that the whole operation should be concealed from public scrutiny, and thus escape legal penalty.
At this point I cannot help asking myself whether some of the people concerned committed the crime of conspiracy as defined in the Queensland Criminal Code:
CHAPTER 56 – CONSPIRACY
543: Other conspiracies:
(1) Any person who conspires with another to effect any of the purposes following, that is to say –
(f) to effect any unlawful purpose;
is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.”
Is it unthinkable that some of Pauline Hanson’s enemies might also be liable for 3 years jail?
***
REACTIONS TO MY SUN HERALD COLUMN LAST WEEK
Barry White
I read your column in last weekend’s Sun Herald, We want convincing pollies – honest, where you write:
Have you noticed the questions journos don’t ask? Why did Abbott pull out all stops to keep his donors secret? Why didn’t he want the Australian people to know who the donors were, and why didn’t the donors want the Australian people to know?
Another question that journalists don’t ask is: Why didn’t the public servants in the AEC examine the application made by One Nation to see if One Nation’s constitution complied with the Act? I would have thought that was fundamental to doing its job. Receive applications for government monies, examine the application for compliance, check the information given and approve or reject the application.
This is what happens in every government department that receives an application from the public. You present the application they reject or approve. They don’t send you to gaol if it does not comply!!!
Margo: Hi Barry. Hanson’s party was registered federally with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), and the validity of that registration has never been challenged. Because she was a member of the federal parliament at the time, there were virtually no requirements for registration. Her problem arose in registering One Nation in Queensland for the Queensland election. Because there were no One Nation MPs in the Queensland Parliament at the time, she had to go through more hoops to register, ie she had to have 500 members. The Queensland Electoral Commission registered the party in 1997 without protest from any political party. Abbott started screaming only after One Nation did so well at the June 1998 Queensland election. He and Howard then realised One Nation could threaten their regime at the federal election due later that year, because it was now due $500,000 in public funding because of the high vote it received. Abbott lobbied the Queensland Electoral Commissioner Des O’Shea to have another look at One Nation’s registration. He did, confirmed its validity, and One Nation got its cash (it had to repay the money after Sharples later won the Court case he instigated at the urging of and with the legal help and and financial guarantee of Abbott). Des O’Shea defended One Nation’s registration in the Sharples case. See Unmasked Howard gets amnesia on Hanson for more on the political background to the Sharples case.
***
Margaret Cleat
Margo Kingston is on a witchhunt and she’s aiming for the wrong target. It’s our political masters who make the rules and legislation about funding for political parties and they should be held accountable. The AEC is the only independent voice in this whole debate. Margo is simply trying to undermine their role. Perhaps she is stirring up the possum to guarantee sales of her next book? What will it be about I wonder?
***
Mike Sanchez
In my many years as an avid reader of the tabloid press, I have never come across anything like the Margo Kingston phenomenon. It’s like witnessing a mental breakdown in print. Miss Kingston’s bile spewed through her pen is frightening. Her hatred of anything resembling neo-conservatism borders on manic. (The) article in the Sun Herald is like a livid, verbal coil, unsprung on the unsuspecting reader. Her pre-menstrual tension is unmercifully cast upon the reader in an un-coherent, illogical, hateful blast of verbal rubbish. No attempt made to deliver an argument, just give-em-a-piece-of-my-mind stuff. Miss Kingston needs help. In the interests of its readers, Fairfax should provide Kingston with appropriate counselling and a few years leave without pay.
John Howard
***
Tony O’Hanlon
I just wanted you to know that your comments and column in the SMH give me great relief. For a while now I was beginning to think that the commercial press had become a Government instrument. Like some, I started to believe only Tony Jones, Maxine McKew and Kerry O’Brien would challenge the word of the Government. Thank you for giving me the belief and hope our country will change and once more be a great nation that we can be proud of.
Margo: See troppoarmadillo for law lecturer Ken Parish’s essay on Hannah Arendt’s essay ‘Truth and politics’.