Christian Porter has just thrown a bomb under the government. By taking an undisclosed amount of money from a secret benefactor, he risks undermining some of the most basic principles of democracy: disclosing your financial interests.
The public is unlikely to accept that a sitting politician should be able to receive a bag of unmarked bills from an anonymous donor. Who’s to say the money isn’t coming from a foreign government?
It also puts the prime minister in a bind — is he really going to stand by while this happens?
Anthony Whealy QC, a former justice of the Supreme Court of NSW Court of Appeal and chairman of the Centre for Public Integrity, said the matter went way beyond a disclosure issue.
“This is an affront to our democratic principles, to have the concealment of major funding like this,” he told Crikey.
“It goes far beyond a slip up of disclosing something like Barry O’Farrell and his bottle of Grange. The public are entitled to know where this money comes from and if he doesn’t disclose it he is deliberately concealing it from the public.”
Porter’s position may be untenable unless he hands back the money or reveals who his benefactors are. In his declaration, he has claimed that as he is a potential beneficiary to the blind trust, he had “no access to information about the conduct and funding of the trust”.
But this still doesn’t explain some basic mechanical questions. Where did the money turn up? And if it was in his bank account, how did the trust get his bank account details? Who told him the money was coming? And what steps has he taken to try to find out who was behind it?
Then there are the bigger questions about his decision to accept the money, such as:
- Does the minister know the benefactor(s) behind the trust? If not, why would he take the money?
- Why won’t he reveal how much money he received as per the rules of disclosure?
- What is his response to claims that taking money from an unknown source is undemocratic given the money could have come from a foreign government?
- If he won’t reveal how much he received or who gave it to him, why won’t he return the money?
The prime minister also has questions to answer, namely:
- Will the prime minister demand Christian Porter release the details of his benefactors and the total amount he received, as per the spirit of the disclosure rules?
- How is the prime minister confident that this money has not come from a foreign government or some other source that could breach national security?
- If the prime minister allows government members to take unknown sums of money from unknown sources, what is to stop them receiving money from a foreign government?
So here is a thing.
Compare the coverage of Kristina Keneally and Porter.
Kristina Keneally is still making news after a week, the issue of Porter will disappear within a couple of days. Porter has done something pretty outrageous and something that attacks the essence of democracy, Keneally has done something that so many people have done before. There wasn’t a week of outrage when Craig Kelly was forced into his seat for the last election. Appointing a Human Rights Commissioner, who has many questions to answer, secretly without due process did not produce a week of outrage, the Porter outrage will vanish by Friday. There are issues beyond count that the Morrison government has been involved that have only lasted a few days.
I have no real position on Keneally personally. I have gone to skepticism when she was NSW Premier to wishing Albanese was half as competent when speaking to the media, but this is a storm in a teacup. In a ideal world this would have been handled differently, but the only reason this this is an ongoing issue is because it is about the Labor Party and our media simply hates them, they hate the Green’s more, but they still hate Labor.
Here is a current example Andrew’s A,C,B+,B,B,C+ produces C+, Berejiklian D,C,A,B,C,D produces C – come on. Nothing Andrews did shut down NSW, quite the opposite. Well it is the opposite. Berejiklian has caused both Victoria and the ACT to lock down. The difference is that NSW media love her and the Vic media encourage right wing agitators to harass Andrews.
Id love Crikey to rate all the key players both federally and in the states. More than any anything else It would be very revealing of Crikey’s left-right bias. Hell, Id like to see all major media players being required to go on the record stating their positions of politicians, parties and key issues such as climate change, so that readers can understand what biases are driving the media they are consuming.
Yeah, that’s right. The two issues combined make an excellent example of bias the ALP has to live with.
And I like your reference to “issues beyond count”. The Morrison government exists in a state of permanent near dudgeon, a base level of grudging tolerance by an electorate for whom one scandal bleeds into another on a continual basis. It worries me that this level of tolerance will again be extended to them come election day. A whip up of the usual “where’s the money coming from?”s, ignoring ALP figures & then the inevitable “Labor is having trouble getting its case out” & on & on with the usual will be enough to get Morrison through.
This turns the blind trust idea on its head. It would normally be the minister who owns the assets in the blind trust, not a third party who uses those assets to make gifts (I’m being polite) to the minister. (And Turnbull, once again demonstrating how some politicians only begin talking sense once they have left office, is dead right that blind trusts lack credibility even when used in the conventional way: the minister with assets in a blind trust does not have any idea where the trustee has invested, we are told – yeah, right.)
There is no practical difference between the cash handed to Porter and an anonymous gift / donation / bribe. The source of the cash is not revealed and so Porter’s declaration of the payment is useless with regard to the purpose of disclosure. What a joke. Frydenburg puts the cherry on top: “Christian Porter has disclosed, in accordance with the requirements of parliamentarians on their register of interests,” Mr Frydenberg told Sky News. “And he has done so in a way that’s consistent with what other parliamentarians have done.”
Frydenberg needs to be pursued on who the other parliamentarians were/are?
Mr Frydenberg told Sky News. “And he has done so in a way that’s consistent with what other parliamentarians have done.”
I am sorry, but the last time “other parliamentairians have done something similar” was during the Bejelke- Peterson era in Queensland.
What other instances are available where the recipient claims to not know from where the funds came?
A 4 corners inquiry resulted in “the moonlight state episodes” this led to a Royal Commission, a Police Commissioner jailed, a charge of corruption in public office against the premier of the state, a trial which resulted in a hold out vote by the chairman who refused to believe that Joh could do anything wrong and the jailing of a number of ministers.
Are these the previous instances that Joshie Boy is referring to?
I like the Bjelke Jo reference, especially given that our current Queensland representatives belong to a party which is run by essentially the flotsam of the old Bjelke Jo Country Party.
Few of the current liberal junta would be any more honest or moral than Joh and his little band of pirates were.
And Porter’s grandpa was one of Joh’s MP, so full circle again.
So, the rest of the party is as rotten as Porter, is that what you’re saying, Josh?
As a commentor known as “K” has pointed out on the Michael Bradley article in today’s Crikey, the trust did’t “get his bank details” or deposit the money because the trust is not a legal person and cannot do anything. The trustee of the trust got his bank details and deposited the money. The trustee is a legal person who must be known to Porter. This isn’t a question of some creative scam or finding a loophole – is a frank refusal to disclose the identity of the PERSON who deposited money into his account or on his behalf.
The trustee probably told Porter that the trust would pay some of the legal fees DIRECTLY to the relevant law firm. The blind trust would be stupid if it paid the $$ into any bank account associated with Porter and therefore ‘trusted’ him to apply the funds to his legal fees.
That’s probably right, but in terms of disclosure obligations it makes no difference whether the money was paid directly into his bank account or into a different account on his behalf
What the trustee may or may not have said to Porter, it is irrelevant.
The name of the Trustee of the fund needs to be disclosed by Porter, or we are all within our rights to decide that the source of the money is illegal.
Porter said “Parliamentary career, what parliamentary career?”
And if over $10,000 would these transfers not be notified to AUSTRAC?
The word “Trust”, has a familiar ring to it, as if he’s in protective custody.
A certain Person not to be Mentioned, may have his back due to a NDA for services rendered. Who knows how many favours are owed? Look at the bills passed since he’s been back.
Either that or bribery & corruption.
Or all of the above.
What was the recent bill that had many people angry & upset?
I’m in a ‘conspiracy theory’ mindset today, hiding behind a curtain does that to people.
Not a good look for an Attorney General (or anyone in the public service).
There is something rotten in that pile that Porter is sitting on. It smells!