Any proper assessment of Christian Porter’s fitness for office would not only properly assess the sexual assault allegations but would his performance as a politician and as a minister. It would appear his personal failings mirror his abuse of political principle.
It began long before I had any knowledge of his private character or about the allegations of the rape of a schoolgirl 33 years ago. But it was strengthened by what I learnt in Louise Milligan’s Four Corners report about his character as a university student and young lawyer around Perth. Milligan, it seems, was unable to satisfy ABC lawyers in November that it was safe to broadcast the rape allegations, but it seems clear, in retrospect, that some of the material that was broadcast had been gathered in the context of the allegation.
It is apparent that his personal failings mirror his abuse of political principle. He emerges as a deeply unpleasant character, particularly in relation to drinking, to deeply sexist, misogynist and dismissive attitudes to women (and indeed other groups including the disabled) and to being, generally, a Hooray Henry sort of entitled buffoon of the type exemplified in Britain by the associates of David Cameron and Boris Johnson. He was frequently accused of inappropriate behaviour with women.
While he was teaching criminal law, he was said to have had a gratuitous focus on violent and sexually graphic material in the legal cases he taught. It was not necessarily different at the law school I attended but, for what it is worth, Porter was teaching in an era that was supposed to have absorbed some of the past 50 years of feminist insights.
A barrister, Kathleen Foley, told Four Corners:
“For a long time, Christian has benefited from the silence around his conduct and his behaviour, and the silence has meant that his behaviour has been tolerated and after a certain amount of time, the silence means that it’s condoned and that it’s considered acceptable. And I’m here because I don’t think that his behaviour should be tolerated, and it is not acceptable.”
None of this shows him to be guilty of the rape he so vehemently denies. But it says something of his character that an independent observer would be entitled to consider while assessing the wider questions about his personality, temperament and disposition. They certainly contrast with the posture of a strong ethical and moral base and deep religious conservatism.
All this sit alongside a record as Attorney-General of appointing Liberal Party cronies to high-paying quasi-judicial positions, outside the merit process.
It includes giving dubious secret advice permitting highly irregular distribution of grants for partisan purposes, interventions in deeply political prosecutions that violated principles of the Crown being a model litigant.
It involved his role as a social security minister administering the Robodebt scheme when he knew, and was concealing legal advice and quasi-judicial findings, that the scheme was illegal. The Robodebt process, like an increasing number of processes in the refugee system, has a reversed onus of proof, contrary to the rule of law to which he has so suddenly become attached.
Porter has carried on with a new type of approach to being law officer. Once, the first law officer had occasionally to stand at a distance from his colleagues, explaining what the law was, rather than presenting them with schemes, stratagems and dubious interpretations to assist ministers or agents to circumvent the will of the parliament. Once, the concept of the rule of law necessarily implied that public administration was circumscribed by guidelines that enforced equality of access to, and fair dealings from government.
Government law subverts basic principles
Under Porter and Morrison, particularly since the pandemic, we have shysters finding ways to subvert the law. Much government is occurring under discretion, without accountability or public reporting, and without the slightest attempt to offer all citizens an equal fair go.
Morrison may be chiefly at fault, but no one could suggest that Porter has demonstrated the slightest amount of spine in the way he has enabled it. It is for that sort of reason that he would be doing Australia a big favour by withdrawing from public life.
Nearly 50 years ago, Richard Nixon’s attempt to frustrate the various Watergate inquiries included the insistence that many of his claims for executive privilege were made not so much for his personal private advantage, but so as to preserve necessary freedom of action for future presidents. If the public were able to learn what was said in the Oval Office, he claimed, no one would be able to give a president frank and free advice ever again.
Indeed, the lawyer appearing for him told one court,
“The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.”
The US Supreme Court rejected the argument, and the power of presidents does not appear to have waned.
Porter’s argument that his refusal to resign is in defence of the rule of law, to prevent the creation of some circumstance whereby a person can be forced to resign by mere allegation, is entirely self-serving.
First, it is simply not true that he is under attack only because an allegation has been made. While the allegation is not enough to sustain a criminal prosecution, it can be examined in any number of contexts, including the courts, as any number of notorious cases involving alleged sexual harassment or unfair dismissal would show.
No process in prospect creates any risk of jail or fine, other than for perjury. If it puts at risk his position as a minister, that is not a position he holds by right but at the whim of the prime minister.
It is clear that he must go if and when Morrison thinks him a burden. He is that, if only as a perpetual distraction about the government’s treatment of women. There is simply no way in which a man of his character and disposition can become an asset rather than a liability.
Indeed, it is almost impossible to imagine Morrison – marketer supreme – transforming himself, in the mind of Australian women, into a champion of the rights and dignity of woman. If he doesn’t already know that could never occur while Christian Porter is his legal adviser, he is not the politician I have thought.
John Waterford AM, better known as Jack Waterford, is an Australian journalist and commentator.
Comments
25 responses to “Is Christian Porter fit to hold public office?”
Two points.
1. There needs to be a ‘character test’ for those who hold senior public – and private (including corporate) – office. The High Court’s action in relation to Dyson Heydon is apposite. Extending such ‘character tests’ to the holders of private office is an administrative challenge. Given the prolixity and pedigree of contributions from outstanding administrators, I invite them to meet that challenge!
2. Yes – ‘Dark Triadism’. Yes, this is conceptually (and psychosocially) complex. But let’s at least please call a spade a bloody shovel. ‘Narcissism’ is merely one – and a predictable – component (as is machiavellianism (does anyone expect contenders for senior Cabinet positions to NOT be machiavellian?)). Porter is not simply narcissistic, not merely also machiavellian but is likely to be psychopathological – and sadistic also. He is therefore designatable as a ‘Dark Tetradist’ – a phrase coined a mere 8 years ago.
The intellectual and psychologically functional profiles of P & I contributors themselves invite this observation. I urge contributors to see ‘Dark Triadism/Tetradism’ as a matrix of contemporary ‘secular wickedness’. Finally displacing the crudity and intellectual indefensibility of ‘Satan’ – yet so comprehensively embodying his contemporary qualities!!
And not even a mention of Lionel Murphy. No bias of course!
The criminal law lecture charge is a bit silly, though I despise Porter. Criminal law is unpleasant; many judges and barristers end up with depression. However, as long as criminal justice is necessary, the fact situations of each case are necessary. That’s not relevant to a rape allegation in my opinion. If you don’t like blood, for example, you don’t become a doctor. That’s just workplace common sense. I think he should be removed for his multiple failures as first Law Officer, possibly more important than the Chief Justice’s office itself.
The criminal law lecture charge is a bit silly, though I despise Porter. Criminal law is unpleasant; many judges and barristers end up with depression. However, as long as criminal justice is necessary, the fact situations of each case are necessary. That’s not relevant to a rape allegation in my opinion. If you don’t like blood, for example, you don’t become a doctor. That’s just workplace common sense. I think he should be removed for his multiple failures as first Law Officer, possibly more important than the Chief Justice’s office itself.
Porter seems appalling by any measure, as a consequence he’s in no way fit to hold the AG position. However, this episode does lead me to question the wilful silence on behalf of the ABC and other media outlets when it comes to the very much alive accuser of Bill Shorten for similar sexual offenses. The lady in question has been completely stonewalled in all regards. It’s not that she has been deemed not credible, she has been effectively ignored. By all means remove Porter, but in all seriousness, Shorten needs to be questioned over his actions and his accusers allegations.
Bill Shorten unlike Christian Porter endured a full investigation by the Police and was cleared of any wrong doing.The delay by the NSW Police to investigate the allegations against Porter until the woman finally took her own life seem strangely odd to me. I suspect powerful people in the NSW Liberal Party used their influence to delay the investigations as long as possible .Unfortunately corruption in politics and the NSW Police Force have a long history. As Jack has written, Porter’s behavior is well documented, particularly by Karen Middleton’s investigative reporting . On the balance of what I have learnt Porter is not fit to be Attorney General .
Elizabeth Minter details ” Christian Porter responsible for serial breaches of the law, now cries “rule of law”
TOP ARTICLE on Michael wests site
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/christian-porter-responsible-for-serial-breaches-of-the-law-now-cries-rule-of-law/
Everything you write about our AG Jack is a very accurate analysis of the situation in which we find ourselves.
Your statement about his abuse of political principles can be seen in the way that he is pursuing Bernard Collaery and Witness K – the two Australians that assisted Timor-Leste to have justice in the Timor Sea and to prevent them from being ripped off by Australian governments.
He has falsely claimed that there actions undermined Australia’s security, he has interfered in the conduct of the trial by having closed hearings, only allowing limited access to their lawyers and even interfering when an eminent lawyer offered to represent Bernard Collaery pro bono. The role of the Attorney General is to ensure the fair and reasonable conduct of the law of the land – not interfere in the process to obtain a desired outcome. And in this case, his desired outcome is to imprison two very worthy people who ensured justice and fairness in international law for Timor-Leste after its people had suffered 24 years of terrorist horror at the hands of the brutal Indonesian military.(TNI).
it is obvious that Christian Porter has been pursuing this so virulently to punish these men for helping to counter an illegal policy that was conducted by the Howard government and continued by those of Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison .and to deter other citizens from taking such action to prevent unlawful actions of governments. Interestingly the Rudd and Gillard governments did nothing to stop the attempts to defraud Timor-Leste and the federal ALP leadership refuses to speak out for Witness K and Collaery.
Porter probably hoped that his actions against Witness K and Collaery would prevent the public from focusing on the true law-breakers in this matter ie John Howard, Alexander Downer and Josh Frydenberg ( who was then an adviser to Downer)..However, the longer the allegation of rape continues in the media,, the more people will scrutinise all of Porter’s machinations and this could contribute to his undoing..
And he has the effrontery to talk about the rule of law! What is very obvious is that no matter how often Christian Porter and his LNP colleagues bang on about the rule of law, it means very little to them. One thing is plainly obvious is that these eople who believe they were born to rule only believe that the rule of law applies to their rivals and not to them. Their politics have nothing to do with fairness, social justice, respect for all or the rule of law.
It’s hardly surprising that the federal ALP leadership is keeping a very silent profile when the rip-off of Timor-Leste comes up. Wasn’t it one of their own who started the scam in the first place? I think he then went on to become an “eminent person”, after briefly stopping in a marriage bed other than his own.
You are correct. And that person is Gareth Evans, but ironically now believes that the charges against Bernard Collaery and Witness K should be dropped. This is despite the fact that they helped to frustrate what he had been trying to do. maybe he developed a conscience. He certainly did some positive things when he worked with the International Crisis Group.
Naively, we helped Timor Leste independent, why should we shift the sea boundry, I wonder the lobby of Large Oil and Gas company and influences in both party in Australian goverment.
Thank-you Jack
All this week I’ve just been thinking that it’s hard for me to get past :” The bloke is just a hypocritical private schoolboy pr- – – ” and now you and some of your readers have confirmed the validity of my first thought.. Good character must be on the selection criteria for AG and this bloke hasn’t got a sniff of it.
From what I read today Scotty is going to keep Porter.
It’s a one man band, Morrison is now judge, jury, and has perfect mind to know all and deliver justice. He makes the decision for us which seems to place him in the realm of a omniscient god in knowing what Porter has done or not.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/10/scott-morrison-declares-christian-porter-innocent-and-says-he-will-remain-in-role
He’s also taking over Hunt’s role in health, lots of opportunities for more of Scott marketing himself, the new minister for wonder drugs.
And now in a continuation of support for the greatness of ‘freedom of speech he waxes fascist:
“Doctors, nurses and pharmacists will face harsh penalties for spreading anti-vaccination claims on social media, including being stripped of their ability to practise.”
What happened to these people’s freedom of speech? Only a few weeks ago that was Craig Kelly’s right.
Not half overkill is it? Destroy someones career and source of income for life is the penalty, but then that has been going on in the public service for some time now.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/doctors-healthcare-workers-to-be-punished-for-anti-vax-covid-claims-20210310-p579dk.html
The point is that because the person who made the allegations is dead now, there will always be a lingering question about whether the alleged rape took place or not. Whether it is Christian Porter, or anyone else, the position of Attorney General requires a person of the highest calibre concerning the law and their historical actions. They must be seen to be impeccable, so given there will always be doubt – we just can’t take Porter and the prime minister’s word for it that he didn’t do it – then this situation cannot be resolved even if there are several inquiries. He has to go.
in many war stories, the victims holding a gun just to show legitemate, although the gun is not belong to the victim. Yes, sadly she is not around us, otherwise would be good explaination of the Attorney General.
There is no prospect of Porter being convicted of a criminal offence. However, as Jack points out in his excellent article, a separate, impartial inquiry would almost certainly establish that he is not a fit and proper person to hold the office of our national AG. Let’s hope the SA coroner will convene an inquest where all relevant facts pertaining to Kate’s suicide will be aired.
The PM believes that with sufficient budget and message repetition, he excels at selling anything to the masses—hence the nonsense about rule of law and the idea that truth is always uncovered by the criminal law process and this can be achieved in no other way. What is the role of parliamentary inquiries or royal commissions? What is infallible about jury verdicts? I cite the case of the Chamberlains. Had Azaria died a decade earlier, Lindy would have been facing the death penalty, an outcome more serious than losing a job the holder is not even doing well. Our criminal courts are not the only place in which a person’s career can be decided as the Australian Story team recounted so well in the case of Shayna Jack on Monday.
When will the PM realise he is tarnishing his reputation by continuing to run his spurious argument?
Off topic but I am wondering which Cabinet Minister will be next to check into hospital. Fletcher? Payne? Cash? Birmingham? Morrison himself? Should we open a book on it?
With Morrison it’s quite possible all of his ministers and senators could end up on narcissistic self-victimising holiday breaks. Poor things (unlike the pain they delivered to Robodebt victims, and refugees many of whom suicided).
That way he could shut down parliament so it hardly sits in full which is how he has run things since he has been in office = part-time parliament. That way there is no question time, or debate, no need to answer questions or accept accountability and responsibility. They can just get on with planning more ways to give the richest more money and devising more staged events to make Scotty and the Liberals look good for press conferences.
All true.
We can i think add that Porter through his own ill judged media appearance has made himself ineligible for the role of AG, by either lying or being deliberately duplicitous in full public view.
Porter said he did not read the allegations. Now this is frankly unbelievable and I think there would be virtually NO humans capable of not reading this material if it concerned them. The strong probability is that he lied (as i think did Morrison).
If however Porter was telling the truth about not reading the allegations then we must ask why not. Was this on legal advice to avoid having to deny things which are true. In other words deliberate duplicity or at least major avoidance activity.
Either or both these options made in a public forum make him unfit to be AG or a judge. He can still be a barrister – obfuscation is their bread and butter, but AG or judiciary – NO..
I agree that plausible deniability and deliberate duplicity are at work here. He had consulted his defamation lawyers and ScoMo probably had too thrugh his office. Would a FOI request reveled what advice was tendered to ScoMo on this?
In short, no, Porter is not fit to hold public office, and in fact, has debased the Australia’s democracy and rule of law.
Jack, You nailed it in so many of the issues in just a few straightforward, honest ways. Thanks, LIZ (Dax aka Taylor!)
Excellent Jack and several further points:
1. Only two weeks ago – it seems longer – Porter acted at the behest of the loathsome Hanson to neuter and dismantle the Family Court to the detriment of all Australian women.
2. What about the importance of the Office of the Commonwealth Attorney General? As you point out it has a special role usually somewhat removed from the hurly- burly of politics. If either Porter or Morrison had any respect for the office, he would be gone by now. But no.
3. Morrison’s 2021 IWD slogan ‘Respect Protect Reflect’ rings laughably hollow does it not?
Not that I for one want ‘protection’ granted by you, PM. Indeed it seems very apparent that the women of Australia need protection FROM you.
We just want the laws against attack enforced.
Looking right you NSW Police – you all should be ashamed at your failure to pursue the allegations made by Kate. We can all see you trembling with fear at the thought of even approaching Porter in his AG’s office. Shame on you.
The 17yo had just left Hale. They thought he was superb. They own him. Where’s the blowtorch on them, and boys’ schools generally? Look at Heydon too, the Sleaze Of Shore.
Australia, reject Morrison’s tosh that the “rule of law” leaves Porter in office.