Never have anything to do with a document. Sound advice given to young lawyers as they enter a profession where documents frequently lead to the undoing of clients and colleagues.
As a successful litigator, Malcolm Turnbull knows better than most that the provenance of documents — the origin and history of ownership of file notes, emails and correspondence — is crucial to winning a legal argument. And a political one. That’s why his failure to rigorously check the voracity and authenticity of the Godwin Grech email is so curious.
The Leader of the Opposition’s mishandling of the affair suggests a lack of attention to detail, a penchant for conspiracy and a preference for politics as media melodrama, rather than reasoned debate.
The OzCar affair, intended to bring down the Prime Minister and the Federal Government, is now an informal inquiry into Turnbull’s fitness to govern.
Turnbull’s public life is a treatise to the “smoking gun” document and whistleblowing.
Turnbull made his name as a litigator in the “Spycatcher trial”. The litigation, centred around a book revealing secrets about British intelligence agency, MI5, told from a former spy. Turnbull was the young brash lawyer who fought off the British Government’s attempts to suppress the document. His public identity — and perhaps his own self-perception — is shaped by his role in the case. An outsider, getting inside, then offside, power.
Turnbull is quick to finger conspiracy because this is how he experiences politics and power.
In 2008 Four Corners revealed that Turnbull was the whistleblower who gave the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal private notes that forced Kerry Packer to withdraw from his bid for the Fairfax newspaper group. Turnbull, a former Packer employee, was part of Consortium seeking the company until a fall out with the media magnate caused him to reveal all.
The story revealed that Turnbull, in Deep-Throat disguise, hunkered down in a car and passed notes to a Tribunal employee implicating his former mate in breaches of cross media laws. He’s never denied the story.
This indelible image now looms large in the Ozcar affair.
No doubt, witnessing Grech’s painful evidence before Senate Estimates on Friday caused Turnbull to reflect on his own personal anguish dobbing in a former patron and boss. But for Turnbull his own whistleblowing experience, along with the Spycatcher trial, has skewed his judgment towards seeing everything as conspiracy. His response to the Grant email and Ozcar generally is making mountains over molehills — it looks like Pissweak-gate.
If Godwin Grech is the ultimate, hapless whistleblower — an outsider, offside with the Government — then Turnbull can rely on his role as spy litigator, the dogged advocate of the whistleblower to get him out of this mess.
But if Grech is the ultimate insider, a stooge of the Liberal party in Treasury, then Turnbull is nothing more than a co-conspirator. Whether he will be prepared to dob in colleagues and patrons within his own party to save his skin is now the real story hiding in a paper trail.
Thanks for the advice Tanja, especially about the need for paying attention to detail. Yet I’m not quite sure just how you check an email for gluttony, even a fraudulent one. Last time I looked, there was quite a difference in meaning between voracity and veracity. Ah, all those years of legal training have left you (and presumably Crikey’s always creative subeditors) a trifle detail-challenged.
Oh very droll Mr Nasht. If that is your total contribution to a very serious debate, you probably would have better served us all by keeping the petty comments to one self. Do you not think the Opposition is doing very well in the petty stakes? There were many other, far more important aspects of Tanja’s article that you could have dicussed. I take it you find no other fault with her grammar or the substance of her other remarks.
If we are talking being challenged you offer yourself one. Maturity.
Great article. Simon Nasht’s comment misses the points. Turnbull did not need to claim the email was genuine. He needed to refer to it, and in fact perhaps refer it to authorities, but rather than claim it was proof of corruption he needed only to point out that it prompted some obvious questions. As leader of Australia’s alternative government, Turnbull would have had a win whether the email was genuine or not. The reality which Turnbull missed was that an opposition leader’s calls for the PM to resign will never, ever be taken seriously due to the obvious conflict of interest standing out like the proverbial dogs balls. Just as government ministers criticising the opposition leader suffer the same fate. The ultimate test is the outcome of the election – this doesn’t need “I’ve proven the PM is corrupt” theatrics, it just needs months and months and months of “yet again, more questions about the PM’s conduct need to be investigated”. Turnbull’s error, particularly in light of his previous careers, is difficult to understand.
I am still none the wiser who is supposed to have cooked up the false authorship of ‘the email’ within Treasury.
If a lackey loyal to the PMO then it’s just as damning of the PM?
Perhaps Tom, like the rest of us you will have to wait until the Feds have ended their investigation.