Our Canberra insider Hillary Bray points out that Labor raised more than $100,000 from the public for Carmen Lawrence’s legal fighting fund when they knew taxpayers would pick up the tab. What’s happened to the money?

Dazza The Doormat

It hasn’t been a great week for Attorney General Daryl Williams. Before he entered Parliament, Dazza was considered one of Australia’s best barristers. Now, it looks as if even Ally McBeal could give him a beating about the head.

The big D was well and truly steamrolled by the feral fringe of the National Party in Tuesday’s Coalition Party Room meeting over video ratings. De-Anne Kelly went on the attack, the PM frowned – clearly a matter of great importance to rural and regional Australia – and Dazza’s legislation was suddenly pulled from the Parliamentary Notice Paper.

Daz later told Sydney’s 2SM that he was disappointed with the move. Not that you could have told, given how quickly he caved in.

Carmen Get It!

The assertive Attorney showed his strength last week in Question Time as well.

At Question Time, everyone has a chance to do some gratuitous political point scoring – backbench, frontbench, government and opposition – and on Wednesday Dazza got a doozy of a dixer. Would he “inform the House of the cost to the taxpayer resulting from the Labor Party attempting to use money donated expressly for the legal defence costs of the member for Fremantle [Carmen Lawrence] for party purposes”.

There was uproar before Daz could reply. When he began, only a few facts fell out before he wilted in the face of a wave interjections and points of order. A pity, because the Lawrence defence fund is actually quite an interesting issue. The matter first came up in a grievance debate on Monday, raised by backbencher Chris Pyne. Pyne is a protege of Amanda Vanstone, the shadow AG when the Lawrence case began, so he may have had some prompting. Still, it’s all strong stuff, so I hope readers forgive me if I do an Alan Ramsey and fill up my space with a long quote from Hansard:

Mr PYNE (Sturt) (5.26 p.m.) -This afternoon I would like to ask the Australian Labor Party what has happened to the money that people donated in good faith to the Carmen Lawrence defence fund. In the interests of accountability the Leader of the Opposition, who played an integral role in the establishment of this defence fund, must disclose to the House the answer to several critical questions regarding the status of the defence fund. He must also explain what will happen to those funds now that the Commonwealth is likely to be liable for all of Carmen Lawrence’s legal costs for her representation in the Marks Royal Commission.

Last month Justice Burchett delivered his orders in Vass v the Commonwealth, a civil action regarding the liability of Carmen Lawrence’s legal fees as a result of the Marks Royal Commission. As a result of these orders, it is likely that the Commonwealth will be liable for that portion of Carmen Lawrence’s legal fees that were not previously approved by the parliament. The train of events that led to the establishment of the Carmen Lawrence defence fund started on 8 June 1995, when the Keating-Beazley cabinet decided that the Commonwealth would be liable for former Minister Lawrence’s legal costs?

(V)arious senior ministers? made statements about the issue of Carmen Lawrence’s legal fees that led the public to believe that former Minister Lawrence faced a crisis that could result in her personal bankruptcy… On 3 December 1995, then Minister Beazley was reported in the Canberra Times as follows:

“Deputy Prime Minister Kim Beazley says it is imperative the Labor Party ensure that Carmen Lawrence is not bankrupted by having to pay legal fees arising out of her court challenges to the Marks Royal Commission. Mr Beazley confirmed that Dr Lawrence would have to step down from parliament if she were made bankrupt? ‘We could not let that happen, absolutely’.”

But, even when they made those statements, did they know that in fact this would never be the case? In fact, did they not already know that the government was locked into paying the legal fees because cabinet had already made that decision? Indeed, on 29 November 1995, former Minister Lawrence claimed:

“Cabinet decided that the bills should be met. I would not have undertaken any challenges at all if there had been any suggestion that they would have to be met either by me or the ALP”? It seems that former Ministers Beazley, Evans and Lawrence were all aware that cabinet had decided the Commonwealth would pay the entirety of Carmen Lawrence’s legal fees. They were also most likely aware that the Commonwealth would be forced to pay, irrespective of parliament’s decision. Years later, even Gary Gray admitted: “We have always believed they [the legal fees] were properly incurred by the Commonwealth.”

So, despite former Minister Beazley’s protest that it was not Labor’s “intention to fund that element of Mrs Lawrence’s legal expenses by any other method than ultimately a recourse to parliament,” he was, either by accident or by design, circumventing the superiority of parliament over cabinet by creating an implied contract between the government and Dunhill Madden Butler that their fees would be paid by the Commonwealth?

Evidence produced in the Federal Court on this matter indicated that the Carmen Lawrence Defence Fund has a balance of about $100,000, even though some media reports had previously suggested that the defence fund had collected about $240,000? The true balance of the Carmen Lawrence Defence Fund is only one of many unanswered questions?

The public and the donors to the Carmen Lawrence Defence Fund may well ask why the proceeds have not been used for the purposes for which they were collected. They may also care to ask about interest earned on the fund and whether administration charges have been made. It would also be expected that, if indeed any payment has been made from the Carmen Lawrence Defence Fund?

It would also be expected that, if indeed any payment has been made from the Carmen Lawrence Defence Fund, the member for Fremantle would make the appropriate declaration on the register of members’ interests. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fremantle and Gary Gray owe it to those people to tell them whether it is going to pay for Carmen Lawrence’s legal fees or whether it will go to $100,000 of direct mail from Curtin House at the next election. The fact is that the Carmen Lawrence Defence Fund was established to pay that part of Carmen Lawrence’s legal fees that parliament refused to pay, and the funds should be used for that purpose.

In other words, Pyne is alleging that Carmen Lawrence and prominent figures in the ALP solicited public donations for her legal defence – even when they knew that the government would be settling the account. Having your legal bills paid from the public purse is one of the perks of power – just ask Peter Reith.

Everyone remembers the shots from 1995 of Carmen being handed bunches and bunches of flowers as she arrived at court each day. The florist’s bill can’t have used up all the cash.

The teenage toecutter makes a very valid point. True, probably only Labor faithful donated to the fund – but if the trustees knew that the poor old taxpayer would end up with the bill, then questions of misrepresentation also remain.

Stephen Who?

Shadow Financial Services Minister Stephen Conroy had better work on his profile at the top end of town.

Steve was recently enjoying the plush surroundings of New York’s Harvard Club on an investment delegation when a young Aussie banker, fresh off the plane and keen to start networking with the expats came up to say hi – and ask if he was the local correspondent for the Financial Review.

And Just Plain Who?

Also at the Harvard Club was the Banquo’s ghost of the New South Wales Parliament, former Liberal leader Peter Collins – with yet another mystery woman.

Where’s Ros Reines when you need her?