The now former industry minister Christian Porter says he won’t be resigning from Parliament. Doubtless he hopes to follow the example of Barnaby Joyce and Bridget McKenzie and return to the frontbench after a few months and an election win. But he remains in blatant breach of House of Representatives’ requirements around registration of members’ interests.
The technical term is “serious contempt of the House of Representatives”.
Porter is required by resolution of the House to provide a statement relating to, inter alia, “gifts valued at more than $750 received from official sources, or at more than $300 where received from other than official sources provided that a gift received by a member, the member’s spouse/partner or dependent children from family members or personal friends in a purely personal capacity need not be registered unless the member judges that an appearance of conflict of interest may be seen to exist”.
Of course, Porter could say he has judged that there’s no appearance of a conflict of interest in accepting from an unknown source a gift of a very large amount of money. He says he has been assured the source is not a lobbyist or foreign donor, which leaves Australia’s biggest corporation and wealthiest individuals, organised crime, or anyone who would benefit from having cabinet minister in their deep debt.
The requirements also extend to “any other interests where a conflict of interest with a member’s public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise”, though the explanatory notes for the requirements also say this is a subjective assessment that has to be made by the member.
But how Porter can credibly maintain that he thinks a conflict of interest may not be seen to arise from keeping anonymous donations running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars is a mystery — and once again confirms that he fundamentally lacks judgment.
His decision to release an extended rant yesterday attacking the ABC and social media and portraying himself as the real victim of historic rape allegations (that he strongly denies) further contributes to that perception. So does the strange logic that is the basis for Porter resigning.
… I am not willing to put pressure on the trust to provide me with any further information. I respectfully informed the prime minister that I would not place pressure on the trust to provide me with information to which I am not entitled. I explained my reason for this was that I could not assist any process that would ultimately allow people who have done nothing wrong to become targets of the social media mob and I would continue to respect their position.
So Porter might not want to pressure his benefactors to reveal themselves out of fear that the Twitterati would attack them. But there’s nothing to stop those benefactors from revealing themselves, thereby saving his ministerial career. Indeed it’s a strange “supporter” who would rather see Porter go to the backbench than subject themselves to a brief period of derision from a social media platform that, conservatives routinely insist, is wholly unrepresentative of real Australians.
For that matter, it’s conceivable that Porter is the victim of “supporters” who planned all along to encourage his misjudgment and lead him to a situation where he was in egregious breach of disclosure requirements for ministers and members.
For now, the appearance is that Porter is as much a member for anonymous benefactors who could at any time call in their debt as he is member for Pearce.
As for Prime Minister Scott Morrison, can anyone make sense of his handling of this? Last week he asked his fixer, Phil Gaetjens, to examine the ministerial standards to see if Porter was in breach. What should have been a two-minute exercise had still not been completed by yesterday morning when Morrison apparently decided to offer the revolver to Porter and point the way to the study anyway.
So what was the point of asking Gaetjens to do it in the first place? And what had changed for Morrison between last week and yesterday?
It’s an odd ministerial resignation when it leaves just as many questions about the credibility of the PM as it does about the minister.
So, it is NOT OK for Ministers of the Crown to take money from unknown persons, groups or organisations for personal reasons – resign from your ministerial appointment, is the answer. However, it IS OK, in those circumstances, to remain a member of Parliament and an endorsed member of the Liberal Party of Australia – members of Parliament are at the beck and call of their electorates and enjoy the support of their Party for their personal and political, ethical and moral standards.
We are now getting on for two decades of willful dithering around in the Federal Parliament on a Federal Parliamentary Code of Conduct and its enforcement. This latest episode brings two shameful issues and two abject failures into the light of day yet again – Federal Parliamentarians are unwilling to submit to a fully framed, legislated formal code of conduct and are unwilling to legislate, regulate and resource an independent commission to investigate corruption and unethical behaviour among our federally elected and appointed officials.
Our P.M. has just left the country for a chin-wag with his besties having fleetingly “settled” his Government’s response to this latest deplorable episode no doubt hoping that the rising stink pervading his Government will have been flushed away by the ebb of time or someone else holding the hose before his return. He is walking past his “standard” at a few thousand kilometres distance as usual.
No longer the “Member for Pearce” more the “Member for Whoever’s Funding This Blind Trust”?
And – with Morrison out of the country (for some election PR/photo-ops with Biden) – now for something completely not so different at all – now it’s Cousin Jethro “Handling your feedback on this”?
A precedent has been set.
Back in the early ’90s WA Premier Dowding hopped across to Sydney for some “chin-wagging” and in his absence Carmel Lawrence gathered the numbers and toppled him from “the throne”.
May I say I’m not surprised at this result BK. It’s win win for the libs and CK. The outcome is perfect. I agree with many points you make. After all politics is a chess board. The Gvt saves face, the donors save face and its cheque mate. The people will serve his fate in Pearce and WA. Every thing is clean. The law is no longer needed. He will then have to do law on his own. Clever. Not a new tactic.
Ewe, the beetrooter has just supported CP. Not surprised. The National party would definitely have a slush fund for misogyny, money making, mating, seahorse fascinations and beliefs in a higher power. Cross pollination is a thing.
True, Jennifer, but do we want the hybrid results, knowing the political DNA has mutated into something malignant? 😉
Porter has form. Secrecy is his hallmark. From censoring key parts of the auditor general’s report into defence’s procurement of the Hawkei vehicle to his extraordinary push for a secret trial of Bernard Collaery and Witness K.
The defence put by the ABC in his recent attempt to sue the broadcaster never saw the light of day.
But as the old Beetrooter said, he will be back, seen as necessary support for a party without morals.
Agree 100%, Richard! The fact that the former Attorney-General of Australia, the First Law Officer of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth of Australia, chief law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia and former minister of state thought it was acceptable to behave in this way speaks for itself.
We’re not fond of retrospective legislation in this country, but if the ALP ever puts up a Federal Integrity Commission, its effective date should at least be backdated to the date the LNP said they would introduce an integrity commission. It really seems like the corruption has snowballed since then.
FFS. Retrospective legislation refers to creating a new criminal offence and then prosecuting defendants whose alleged crime occurred prior to it being legislated as an offence. There is nothing retrospective about setting up a new commission to investigate alleged crimes or corruption that occurred in the past, so long as the law creating those offences already existed at the time. This retrospective complaint is another stinking Coalition furphy.
Exactly right. The code and/or law already exists. The inquiry would be to see if it was transgressed. It’s how the police operate.
Don’t state ICACs regularly investigate historic alleged crimes and corruption?
Isn’t every investigation of an alleged crime conducted by anyone looking into events of the past?
Actually no. New investigative powers handed to our intelligence agencies with the support of the opposition can now prosecute pre-crime offences.
Really? These pre-crime offences occur after they are investigated? How exciting!
Or are you merely saying this other legislation, which has nothing to do with setting up a new investigation agency, is an example of retrospective legislation? In which case, how is it relevant to the point being discussed?
I remember the days of Bjelke-Petersen and (supposedly) anonymous brown paper bags of cash being dropped off at the office by people who had no motive whatever beyond a purely innocent desire to help the premier. I wonder if one of Porter’s mates didn’t organise quick whip round of the lucky appointees to the AAT…
I remember Askin’s luck and cards and picking horses
Using, wasn’t it, Norm Allen’s “unlosable system” :- whereby he “backed winners” after a race, when the bookie had ruled off …. with that little extra space?
Andrew Forrest if the rumour is correct
Does Grace Tame know more? Was she a prop like Guy?
Grace Tame is no one’s prop
But she was a pedophile’s victim
Australian of the Year Grace Tame:
The Summit descended into a tokenistic exercise in the marketing and promotion of empty slogans.
And then there’s the matter of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins’ Respect@Work: Sexual Harassment National Inquiry Report (2020) report which sat idle on Morrison’s desk for over a year before his Government finally agreed to adopt just six of the 55 recommendations.
“I would not place pressure on the trust to provide me with information to which I am not entitled.”
Even so, Porter absolutely believes he is entitled to the money. What a wonderfully adaptable notion entitlement is.
He may not think that he is entitled to know but We, the People, eg tax payers are certainly are.
If only to avoid them in future dealings.
How many of the great & good, corporate altruists, well set up crime families & colourful racing identifities must be seething & fuming about being suspected of being Porter’s anonymous benefactors?
I’m only a tax avoiding billionaire, an environmentalist devastator and a gambling entity taking bread from the mouths of gamblers’ children but hey, I did not give a zac to this idiot!
Sounds like a task for contending ad agencies of the next series of the Gruen Transfer.
Could it have come from within the legal community from a person or persons making an investment into a future appointment to the bench?
the payment(s) could have come from anyone. Beijing ? His political enemies, many. Kerry Stokes?