Extract from ABC News
Analysis
Sam Dastyari made several dumb decisions that led to him ultimately being forced to quit Parliament in disgrace. Among them, was allowing a China-backed property group to pick up the tab for some personal legal bills, unrelated to his work as a senator.
Dastyari was a rising Labor star when towards the end of 2014 he listed on his register of Senator's interests, "support for settlement of outstanding legal matter provided by Yuhu Group Pty Ltd." The support was reported to be worth around $40,000.
The disclosure prompted further scrutiny of Dastyari's links to Yuhu and its founder, Huang Xiangmo. This led to revelations the senator had parroted China's lines on the South China Sea at a Chinese-language press conference while standing alongside Huang. Things unravelled from there.
The government went in hard. Just days after Dastyari announced his resignation from Parliament, the newly minted Attorney General Christian Porter announced a ban on foreign political donations. He said it would "improve Australia's confidence in the political system and prevent… new ways of soft power and influence through money."
Nearly four years later, Porter finds himself accused of undermining confidence in the political system, by accepting a potentially large donation to pay for his own personal legal bills. Only this time we have no idea where the money came from.
To be clear, there is no evidence or suggestion Christian Porter has shifted a policy position or granted any favours in return for his financial windfall. But it's difficult to properly scrutinise the potential for a conflict of interest because the Minister says he doesn't know who's stumped up the cash. One thing we do know — Porter's legal bills are considerably higher than Dastyari's. They're reported to be in the range of $600,000 to $1 million.
In late May, just days before settling his defamation case against the ABC, the now Industry Minister admitted his legal bills represented a "massive personal financial drain on me and my resources". He told Sky News he had received "lever arch folder after lever arch folder" of supportive messages, including offers of donations. "People emailed in spontaneously with offers of all different types, but I haven't taken people up on those emails." He gave an assurance that "if at any point in time anything arises that requires me to make disclosures… of course I'll do that."
He was sending a very public signal that his legal bills were huge, he was open to receiving help and would appropriately disclose donations down the track.
How the donation was made
The rules of Parliament's register of interests require MPs to declare footy tickets, flights, gifts, Chairman's Club memberships, assets, investments, and any other financial arrangement that "may conflict or may be seen to conflict with their public duty." When a politician is given "free stuff", voters at least deserve to know who's trying to curry favour.
Porter obviously received enough financial assistance that he felt the need to update his register three days ago. He revealed his legal fees were at least partly paid by "a blind trust known as the Legal Services Trust". But that's all he was giving away.
There was no information about who contributed to the trust or how much. Porter claimed to be ignorant of key details. "I have no access to information about the conduct and funding of the trust."
As many have pointed out, this is not a blind trust. That would involve Porter putting his own money into a trust that someone else manages to avoid any conflicts while he's in office. In this case, Porter knows precisely where the money is going. What he appears to be suggesting is that he has no idea who his generous benefactors are. Although his carefully worded denial of any knowledge on the "conduct and funding" of the trust doesn't make that entirely clear.
More questions than answers
Porter presumably knows how much money is involved here. The idea he doesn't know the size of his own legal bills is not credible. The question is, who's paying? If Porter genuinely doesn't know, this is a problem. Banks can't take money without knowing where it's from, nor can political parties or unions. The idea a Minister of the Crown should be able to receive large sums of money from anonymous donors doesn't pass any sort of pub test.
As the Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus points out, "what if you find out six months or a year in ... that a foreign country gave you the money, and they put the hooks into you?" While it's unlikely a foreign power was the source of this donation, it is entirely possible it has come from someone who stands to potentially benefit from a future government decision. Why does this mystery donor (or donors) want to keep their identity hidden? What is it they don't want the public to know about their decision to support Porter financially in this way?
Porter's "disclosure" has raised far more questions than it has answered. It's created all-new political problems for the Morrison government too.
Labor has revived its pursuit of the government over accountability, integrity and rorts. It's nearly three years since the Prime Minister promised a National Integrity Commission, which Anthony Albanese says would be up this Porter donation "like a rat up a drainpipe". If only it existed.
Some of the Porter's colleagues are privately baffled at his judgement. Doubts are growing he will recontest his West Australian seat of Pearce. That's ultimately a matter for him.
More urgently, the Prime Minister must make clear where he stands. Is he OK with his cabinet ministers receiving large anonymous donations? Is this a standard he’s willing to accept?
Once again, Morrison has turned to the Secretary of his Department, Phil Gaetjens for an answer. He's seeking advice on "any implications for the ministerial standards". In other words, the Prime Minister is worried his own standards have been breached, but wants Gaetjens to make the call. This is unlikely to end well for Porter.
Crucially, Morrison needs to clear up the rules for anyone who seems to think Porter has done nothing wrong. Just as foreign donations were banned four years ago, anonymous donations should be banned too. This might help restore the “confidence in the political system” Porter once promoted.
David Speers is the host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.
No comments:
Post a Comment