Labor’s Graham Perrett once again refuses to toe the line, Cory Bernardi’s thoughts on The Godfather, and Christian Porter’s double standards on surveillance. Plus other tips and murmurs from the Crikey bunker.
Abandoning the unity ticket One of the worst aspects of Attorney-General Christian Porter’s vexatious pursuit of Bernard Collaery and Witness K is the federal Labor Party’s near-complete silence.
Given the ALP’s own role in this crime, it’s perhaps unsurprising. But some ALP members have refused to be complicit. We’ve reported before that Queensland MP Graham Perrett has spoken out, while NSW state Labor MP Paul Lynch has led that branch’s condemnation of it.
We’re happy to report Canberra MP Alicia Payne last Friday joined their ranks, asking, “why is my constituent Bernard Collaery facing charges in a closed court without the protection of open justice and without public scrutiny?”
Perrett also returned to the issue yesterday in parliament, saying it was troubling “that the trial is being held in secret”, and that “the attorney-general is pursuing Bernard Collaery at all”.
With the ABC’s flagship programs (finally) taking a greater interest in the scandal, bit by bit the government’s attempted cover-up is being challenged.
An offer we can refuse A few weeks back, former Liberal senator turned Australian Conservatives leader turned ex-both of those things launched “Cory Bernardi Confidential”, a paywalled (!) website running alongside his ongoing “Weekly Dose of Common Sense” newsletter. Yesterday, he shared his insights on The Godfather. Here’s a taste:
We guess he’s saving the good stuff for the paywall? Unless the thing Cory was keeping confidential was the fact that, without hateful culture warring to animate him, he writes like the most basic guy in your office started a blog.
Welcome to the police state Back in parliament, in a half-smart attempt to capitalise on the downfall of Adem Somyurek, Christian Porter had a Dorothy Dixer asked yesterday, referencing the apparent placement of recording equipment in the office of Labor’s Anthony Byrne:
I think that everyone in this parliament would agree that the idea that a ‘non-law-enforcement device’ … installed in the office of any member of this parliament is a serious concern
So … by extension Porter thinks we should all be relaxed about the idea of law enforcement agencies placing surveillance devices in MPs’ offices?
Given opposition and crossbench MPs are an important destination for whistleblowers exposing government scandals and misconduct, the idea of AFP goons sticking bugs in the offices of MPs — in pursuit of someone who has embarrassed, say, an attorney-general given to pursuing vexatious prosecutions — should also be of serious concern.
Think it wouldn’t happen? Maybe ask Nick Xenophon.
Reply Guy We’ve all thought up the perfect gag, only to regret hitting “reply” before giving it a proper read through.
After Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews delivered his “no offence South Australia, but why would you go there?” sledge, South Australian Liberal Senator Andrew McLachlan — who, incidentally, filled Cory Bernardi’s senate seat earlier this year — saw his chance.
A chance to give a kick to the Supreme Leader of the leftie peoples’ feelocracy, back your home state and introduce yourself to Australia? Who could resist?
Solid enough gag, sure — but in his exuberance he forgot to re-read (or possibly even look at) his statement, which was dated Thursday, 17th June 2020 (a day so correct it doesn’t exist) and still contained the green underlining that Word documents use to alert the author of poor grammar.
News Corp watch “Anthony Byrne, a Clark Kent lookalike” — That’s the sound of Niki Savva in The Australian this morning, gurgling well out of her depth on the Somyurek affair.
Savva is a Liberal side-of-the-aisle person, with seemingly not much understanding of Labor politics. “Albanese barely knows Somyurek, but he was aware of his alleged involvement federally …” she argues. Oh, come on.
Albanese has known exactly who Somyurek is and what he’s been doing for years, since Somyurek was essential to building the Centre Alliance faction with the AWU that ensured Bill Shorten’s powerbase.
Since Albo’s powerbase relied on persuading the remnants of the Stephen Conroy machine to come over to his side, rather than fuse with Somyurek’s Mods faction (to Somyurek’s fury), we are pretty sure Albo has kept his eyes on him for a while now.
Have you got a tip for Crikey? Let us know.
My only comment. I live in SA and I support Andrews and the poor SBS sporting commentator who was roundly slagged for condemning Adelaide as a “s**thole”. I agree with their sentiments.
A nice state ruined by low-intellect, wine-obsessed, tinpot nobodies terrorising everybody else on the roads in their in SUV’s and dual-cabs. And what exactly are McLachlan’s credentials? From his limited time (spent rather anonymously in the Upper House), he seems to be a smart guy, but his election to the Senate was the result of – guess what – a major factional battle in the SA Liberal Party! No real media attention paid to that bit of Machiavellian plotting, but a major media pile-on to Labor over alleged branch stacking (both reflect a rather sick factionally-based and hence corrupted political party system). And no mention of the Liberal Party stacking its membership and the LNP Ministry with Hillsong devotees. Which of the two is more dangerous for the direction of government policies in this country?
Not forgetting the stacking of LNP preselections with members of the ironically named “Institute of Public Affairs” which has become an extreme neo-liberal club for the already wealthy and priviledged.
Its determined efforts to return the country to a ‘Master and servant’ society where a small minority have full control of the affairs of the nation are well under way.
I’ve always found Adelaide a pretty congenial place. Meanwhile, here in Melbourne, COVID-19 lockdown was heavenly. For a whole three months, no one threw their lard-arsed Suburban assaUlt Vehicle at me. They’ve resumed now, so I guess Smoko’s snap-back has started.
Why can’t Labor clone Perrett? ….. And send one out to each electorate.
As for ABC flagships? The oily Lord Bunter was a guest on The Dum a couple of weeks ago – and no mention of his roll?
Yes, Lord Bunter the Downer is rather replete with rolls wobbling over his waistband but it is his role in this scandal that I’d like to see questioned in open court.
Oh for the daze when we had such things, attended by… what’s the word… journalists.
As for Savva – she’s so consumed by what her Liberal Party did to her St Peter (“with all he had”) – then elected an oily rag like Abbott to run on – then that drop-kick Scotty From Marketing – doing in Turnbull who did in Abbott – she’s having trouble seeing anything for what it is – just right for Insiders.
Alicia Payne got Scotty a beauty yesterday in qt!
Bernard thinks anything Labor does is worse than his lnp, read the first article in today’s Crikey in which he describes Andrews’ missteps as ‘notorious’ and the worst ever ever. Not all the other missteps which were lnp.
I remain mystified of Christian Porter’s motives for his disgusting persecution of Bernard Collaery and his client Witness K. Why is Porter so determined to utterly annihilate Collaery’s distinguished career and his quality of life generally?
And why all the cloak and dagger secrecy? We all know what happened. The essential facts have all been ventilated in the International Court of Justice, although those proceedings were stymied by Australian government skullduggery, just as the same government had deliberately and dishonestly dudded Timor Leste for the apparent benefit of Woodside Petroleum.
But my mystification remains. Why is it politically advantageous to be so cruel and inhumane to a lawyer who was simply doing his job? I genuinely cannot figure out the source of this evil.
If Porter had any brains whatsoever ( and he clearly does not), tactically he would at least attempt to buy a level of silence and immunity from compensation from Collaery by negotiating terms of a withdrawal of the prosecution. Why would he do that? Because once Bernard Collaery is free of all the subjudice restrictions surrounding this ridiculous trial, Collaery will not let this government, and the cowardly Labor Party, get away with this scott free. In that regard, I hope Bernard Collaery becomes a multimillionaire and a go-to commentator on the fascist state of our secrecy laws and the covert misuse of them by government off the back of an acquittal. Only then will my outrage abate.
“The embarrassment for Australia’s image from appearing before the International Court of Justice, Permanent Court of Arbitration.
Howard, Downer, Ruddock, Costello et al working to rip off an emerging sovereign nation to benefit an Australian company, Woodside (with whom “nation demolishing” Downer took up a position, after scuttling away from politics) etc etc”.
After Iraq, AWB …. NPA?
Brandis notoriously allegedly had Howard down as “a lying rodent” – more proof if needed about him and that rat-pack he was elected to lead?
…. There’s plenty reputational at stake for Porter and his party.
Here’s hoping the judge lets us all know what they – opening it up and letting the light of scrutiny in on what they did with that “authority” Australia invested in them.
We won’t get a RC into Iraq – that Rudd “promised” (for votes).
It’s pretty simple isn’t it? The aim is to intimidate other lawyers who might try to act in the interests of their clients in future star chamber hearings.
Although the intimidation of lawyers is evil enough, there is more to this ulcer than just that.
Of course there is more to this ulcer. It’s all about protecting the ill-deserved reputations of the previous generation of failed liberals.
Sadly, the ALP is doing nothing about it.
Old saying, “kill a chicken to terrify the monkeys” or, pour effrayer les autres“.
Not sure why they bother, the meeja class could not be more gutless or incurious.
“I remain mystified of Christian Porter’s motives for his disgusting persecution of Bernard Collaery and his client Witness K.”
None of us knows what Porter has up his kilt in the way of secret evidence. If he gets his wish of a closed court and secret evidence, we may never learn the whole of his motives.
But I take the darkest possible view of Porter’s rationale, because he has done nothing to prosecute the persons who ordered the bugging, nor the persons who negotiated CMATS. I thank Collaery for this analysis of what laws were broken by those infamous blunders: https://law.anu.edu.au/sites/all/files/events/national_security_legal_professional_privilege_and_the_bar_rules_print.pdf. I can think of no argument by which these acts could be considered to have been in Australia’s national interest. Porter’s omission makes the prosecution of Collaery and K look politically selective.
What motivation could Porter have for that? Because it was Bernard Collaery who moved the motion over 30 years ago to tip out the minority Liberal Government of the ACT. That is an old grudge, but a good one.
I am qualified to be only a magistrate and certainly a very long way from being a Supreme Court judge. I would not entertain for one day a prosecution which asked me to listen to its case for a prosecution but deny the accused the opportunity to hear or to counter the evidence.
“Is the tide starting to turn on the government’s Bernard Collaery prosecution?” The tide started to turn a very long time ago and there are several very big names which allegedly colluded in fraud, conducted treaty negotiations without bona fides, and sought to prevent K from providing evidence in the Hague. They are now looking marginally out of their depth.
AG Christian Porter seeks to present the secret trial of Bernard Collaery as nothing out of the ordinary.
“”This is an argument about what matters may be heard inside the court, and what matters may be heard publicly”, he says, seeking to portray that as routine.
No, whether the public will be permitted at the trial is only one of many arguments.
The other arguments include highly controversial matters.
Will the prosecution be permitted to give evidence to the court not heard or seen by the accused?
Why is Collaery prosecuted at all?
Why are others who published the bugging not prosecuted?
Why were those who ordered the bugging not prosecuted for the several breaches they committed of ACT law?
This trial is far from normal and the Government’s attempt to disguise it is not only deceitful, it is sinister.