The government’s move to block investigation of Porter donations is a nail in the coffin of integrity in politics
Just when you think the fallout could not get any worse after the former attorney general Christian Porter’s staggering judgement failure – thinking it would be OK to accept an anonymous donation to bail out his personal legal costs – it does.
Porter’s declaration that, as a beneficiary of a “blind trust”, he had no access to information about the original source of the funds, has set a dangerous precedent. It could allow any minister to accept large sums of money and claim they don’t know where it came from because it’s a blind trust – in short, an intended vehicle of secrecy and opaqueness.
The Porter blind trust issue should have gone straight to the privileges committee to determine whether he complied with disclosure rules. No question. The Speaker of the House, Tony Smith, believed there was a “prima facie” case to investigate. In his view it was a matter that warranted further examination and a determination from a procedural perspective.
This is exactly what the committee of privileges and members’ interest is appointed to do – examine and report on potential complaints of breach of privilege, register of interest or contempt which may be referred to it by the House or by the Speaker, among other things.
But it didn’t happen.
In an unprecedented move, Peter Dutton, responsible for managing business for the government in the House, and arguably increasingly looking like the minister for secrecy, swiftly moved in, opposed the recommendation of referral from the Speaker and then set about ordering the troops (by voting on party lines) to block the issue being considered by the privileges committee.
This is the first time in the history of the Australian parliament that this has occurred. It once again rings alarm bells about the eroding integrity, accountability and transparency of our democracy. We can only hope the House of Representatives’ privileges committee will consider the issues, despite parliament voting against referring the Porter matter.
It raises one almighty question: just why did the Coalition think it was necessary to act, as no one has ever before, to effectively try to gag the Speaker and avoid an established mechanism of scrutiny? What did they fear would be exposed and what did they think the political fallout would be?
It is staggering just how broken our integrity systems are. Take the prime minister’s statement of ministerial standards. It is constantly held up as the rulebook by which ministers should abide, and includes lofty statements like “the Australian people deserve a Government that will act with integrity and in the best interests of the people they serve”. But in reality, these standards are rarely dusted off, and when they are, it’s an in-house job, with no independent oversight, no enforcement, consequences or even disclosure of what was investigated.
In the case of Porter, he exited stage left, and resigned as minister, all the while insisting he had complied with the applicable rules. This meant he avoided an investigation under the ministerial standards. Odd given the standards have no teeth, but it seems the controversy around Porter’s declaration was becoming just too hot to handle.
It seems the Coalition may have been caught napping, not expecting the matter to linger and land on the desk of the Speaker. So, when he exercised his rightful powers and recommended referral to the privileges committee, the henchmen moved in and shut it down – once again letting Porter and who knows who else off the hook, and putting another nail in the coffin of transparency and accountability in Australian federal politics.
This latest intervention, coming fast off the back of attacks on several state-based anti-corruption and integrity commissions, sends a clear message that what most Australians want – a fit for purpose national integrity commission that will help restore trust and confidence in government, protect our democracy and hold power to account – is not likely any time soon.
It seems the controversy around Porter’s declaration was becoming just too hot to handle