The Political Right asserts that an investigation into the Porter allegation would mean the end of Western civilisation as we know it. It would trash the Rule of Law, the Presumption of Innocence, the Right to Silence, and many other rights – all individual rights that the Political Right so strongly resists putting in an Australian Bill of Rights. Which is so much poppycock.
The Government has been rocked: two Ministers have called time out from their roles, and the Prime Minister has taken advice from his wife on one – but not the other – scandal. What would Jenny say if one of their daughters claimed she had been brutally raped when she was 16 by another participant at an interschool weekend? Jenny – Mrs Morrison – would presumably be horrified. Which is not to say the allegations against Charles Christian Porter are true.
Events have moved quickly since it was revealed late last month that the 16 year old had, 32 years later, made contact with the NSW Police to complain about the attack she alleged was made on her in Sydney in 1988 by a now federal Cabinet Minister; that the complainant died by suicide in June 2020; and that a letter attaching 31 pages of documentation apparently from the complainant had been sent to Scott Morrison, Penny Wong and Sarah Hanson-Young, and apparently also received by the ABC.
Speculation centred on the identity of the Cabinet Minister because there were 16 possibilities – the number of men in Cabinet. Some observers recalled the ABC Four Corner’s “Inside the Canberra Bubble” program last November, which centred on Porter and Alan Tudge, and claims of inappropriate sexual goings on. That program delved into Porter’s reputation as a party boy during his extended sojourn at university in the decade or so following 1988. I wrote after the program that delving so far back seemed inappropriate.
In the aftermath of Brittany Higgins’ allegations of rape in the office of Defence Minister, Linda Reynolds, the AFP Chief Commissioner, Reece Kershaw wrote to MPs urging that criminal allegations be immediately reported to police. So when Morrison, Wong and Hanson-Young received the dossier about 1988, they each sent it to the AFP. (It should presumably have gone to NSW Police, as that was the force with jurisdiction in the matter; or perhaps the South Australian Police, because the complainant died there).
Morrison’s initial line was to say it was a matter for the police. That was a safe course given that the NSW Police had already indicated the case was closed with the death of the complainant. NSW Police has since reaffirmed that decision. NSW Police has not even sought to interview Porter to put the allegations to him.
Others have argued there needs to be an investigation into the allegations, given their seriousness, and the amount of detail apparently in the dossier. In response, the Political Right has asserted that such an investigation would mean the end of Western civilisation as we know it: it would trash the Rule of Law, the Presumption of Innocence, the Right to Silence, and all those other rights which the Right so strongly resists putting in an Australian Bill of Rights.
So much poppycock.
It is ironic that these arguments are being made in defence of the person – Porter – who has done more to undermine the Rule of Law than any Australian political leader.
Investigations/inquiries outside the processes of the criminal law are commonplace in Australia. About the same time as the 1988 rape/sodomy allegations hit the headlines, the report of an investigation initiated by Porter was given to his office into possible complaints about Dyson Heydon’s conduct while he was Trade Unions Royal Commissioner. Heydon has been the subject of numerous complaints about sexual harassment from his time as a High Court judge. They came to light when it became known that that court – the highest in the land – had commissioned an investigation into his conduct.
Of course, the Royal Commission itself was very much a political witch hunt by Porter’s Government seeking to wound Bill Shorten and Julia Gillard over historic allegations of misdeeds from before they entered federal politics – Shorten including over the granting of money by his union – the AWU – to establish Get Up, and Gillard over legal assistance to establish the AWU Workplace Reform Association and the purchase of a suburban property.
So how many inquiries are we up to, all into criminal allegations, but conducted outside the traditional pattern of the police investigating alleged crimes? And every week seems to see another Royal Commission established.
What Porter says
Porter held a press conference to deny the allegations. Amazingly, Porter said: “I have never been contacted in any substantive form by anyone putting to me the details of what appears is now being alleged against me,” and “All I know about the allegations is what I have read in the media.” All those words presumably mean that he has not seen the dossier – that Morrison did not give it to him; that Porter did not seek it out. Extraordinary! According to the Guardian, Porter’s response had been sought – by journalists from the ABC, Guardian Australia, Crikey, the Sydney Morning Herald and 3AW’s Neil Mitchell. They contacted Porter’s media advisers many times and were ignored.
Last November, Porter denied having been given a chance to respond to the allegations to be made against him in the Four Corners’ “Canberra Bubble”. However the program’s producer told a different story. According to the ABC, Porter later acknowledged “some back and forth” between his office and the ABC. “We wanted particulars,” Porter said, complaining that some comments made in the program “were never put to me”.
Malcolm Turnbull told that program that, when he was PM, he had carpeted Porter over reports of Porter’s carousing. Turnbull said:
“I had a meeting with Porter in my office and I told him that I had had reports of him being out in public, having had too much to drink and in the company with young women. He acknowledged that; he didn’t argue with that.”
Porter’s account of the meeting was again diametrically different: he said Turnbull queried whether there was any accuracy to the carousing “story” he had heard; and according to Porter, “the answer was no”.
In the Four Corners program, a former Liberal staffer who at the time was having an affair with Tudge said that she and Tudge were in Canberra’s Public Bar where they saw Porter with “someone in the corner, and they were clearly very intimate. … They were cuddling, they were kissing. It was quite confronting given that we were in such a public place”.
In a statement after the program went to air, Porter said many of the claims on Four Corners were defamatory and that he would be considering legal options. He later reportedly retracted the implicit threat of legal action. But he said he “categorically rejected” the “depiction of interactions” at Public Bar.
Perhaps more than with any Minister, it is important that the Attorney-General be of high repute for his credibility and integrity. It is way past time that Porter was dumped.
Comments
16 responses to “It is way past time Attorney General Porter was dumped”
Thanks as always to Ian Cunliffe,
I support the immediate sacking of Christian Porter, but for different reasons.
Let’s separate his performance from the recent publicity for the historic rape allegations.
Last Century, the rule of law ensured that accusations against public figures were not made unjustly. Judicial process applied to all. And many public figures were properly censured.
Crikey has pointed out that Christian Porter has an “obsession”, “one of his many hypocrisies” to protect the reputations of public figures.
Let’s look at the measures he uses to achieve his objectives.
He asks us to trust in his personal discretion.
There is a proper role for prosecutorial discretion. We saw it exercised (though not named) this week, when NSW Police properly decided to not prosecute Christian Porter for alleged rape because the required standard of proof could not now be met.
Let’s be clear about how Porter’s practice differs from that. The Porter version seeks to abstain from the prosecution of all those public figures on his side of politics. Among those currently tucked under his protective wing are John Howard, Alexander Downer, George Brandis, the Director of ASIS, the Inspector-General of Intelligence Services. Can Scott Morrison escape
blame for failing to end this practice? Even Jenny might be unsure of that.
He has also inappropriately pursued the prosecution of other public figures who differ politically, the most prominent current example being Bernard Collaery.
And let’s be clear that selective prosecution, whether based on race, social status, gender, party membership, is prosecutorial misconduct. It is immediately a disqualification for the holding of any position of prosecutor, including of course Attorney General.
Porter should go immediately because of prosecutorial misconduct. The danger is that he is spared by ScoMo’s rush to spin the protection of Porter, claiming injustices in recent allegations. ScoMo’s snow job is designed to obfuscate.
My problem is that Porter is a dreadful lawyer. Robodebt was quite obviously illegal. They teach such things in law school, eg unjust enrichment.
Let’s not fall for ScoMo’s obfuscation.
What needs fixing here is a whole lot bigger than Christian Porter’s career relics. Vastly bigger than intimate byplay in the Pubic Bar.
Those issues and the rape allegations must be properly progressed.
But it can no longer be avoided. We desperately need a Bill of Rights as protection from abuses such as Porter’s.
“…and all those other rights which the Right so strongly resists putting in an Australian Bill of Rights” as Ian Cunliffe says. I add that the Left has no record of achievement or effective advocacy on the subject either.
Where do we find safe hands for this sacred duty?
Great points, Glen. I used to oppose a Bill of Rights because I thought the common law worked but I read Geoffrey Robertson’s argument for one and I was convinced. This system is totally broken.
We have reached a point far beyond non-compliance with the rule of law.
The breaches have been so numerous, blatant and serious, the breaches left so long without remedy, that we must conclude that the rule of law is no longer respected but bypassed when the government finds that convenient. Christian Porter drove a B-Double through it, then ironically sought its protection, personally. Morrison’s support of Porter’s procedural “poppycock” makes ScoMo part of the problem, and no solution.
Great points, Glen. I used to oppose a Bill of Rights because I thought the common law worked but I read Geoffrey Robertson’s argument for one and I was convinced. This system is totally broken.
We have reached a point far beyond non-compliance with the rule of law.
The breaches have been so numerous, blatant and serious, the breaches left so long without remedy, that we must conclude that the rule of law is no longer respected but bypassed when the government finds that convenient. Christian Porter drove a B-Double through it, then ironically sought its protection, personally. Morrison’s support of Porter’s procedural “poppycock” makes ScoMo part of the problem, and no solution.
I agree. The Law is no longer sufficient. Love might be the only answer – the highest law.
Mr Davis: yes.
That has been the subtext to most of Mr Austen’s contributions on infrastructure to Pearls since 2016 e.g. https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/john-austen-placating-the-infrastructure-club/ and https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/john-austen-infrastructure-claims-above-the-law/.
In summary: the primary Australian infrastructure issue is not economic, or monetary, but open contempt for Parliament and laws. That view differs radically from those who argue Governments should adopt better mousetrap ‘processes’ or limit themselves to the ‘expert’s list’ e.g Grattan.
The view is Commonwealth Governments, subject to Constitutional direction, should be free to depart from lists provided Parliament considers, beforehand, the ‘why’ as disclosed in an open public inquiry on each project.
The nature, persistence and prevalence of infrastructure advisory and decision making problems suggests their source is not infrastructure, but some wider, deeper, infectious malaise.
That needs to be thoroughly excised.
Identifying reasons for misbehaviour by Parliament House occupants would be a start.
But an inquiry focusing on ‘sex’ /violence (or criminal) symptoms strikes me as likely to just produce pleasing red herring shaped bandaids.
Best wishes
Mr Davis: I agree with you.
It is important to focus tightly on the problem with the Attorney General, as you describe.
This Government’s expertise in diversions is vastly underestimated. For example, it turned a well-meaning call for climate ‘action’ into a less well-intentioned arrogation of emergency powers.
The potential for sidetracking here is great. I see the essence of the ABC led Porter ‘sex-controversy’ as: anonymous letter to 3 politicians alleging a major crime 33 years ago. There are claims of shortcomings with the reporting including non-disclosures, non-sequiturs, inaccuracies, omissions, titillating gossip, and changing excuses for same. It looks ‘slippery’.
Meanwhile attention is sidetracked:
. away from Porter’s non-performance as Attorney General;
. away from the bad behaviour of those in positions of political influence and power, particularly in Parliament House.
On the latter, crimes should be treated as crimes – whether in or outside Parliament House – including accessories. Breaches of workplace laws are breaches of laws. Not to be overlooked because of a ‘culture’ review. Or drawn to attention via the media.
If it is believed illegalities are the tip of a political-culture iceberg, look at that. However, the bad behaviour is not limited to crimes, sex or even professional-personal relations. I suspect its root is a feeling of escape from norms / law. By disdain of the public, and policy proposals, such a feeling looks widespread among the political ‘class’: on both sides, among men and women, and most leaders.
I hope, but doubt, the inquiry into Parliament’s workplace culture, supplemented by investigations and prosecutions will be broad and thorough enough, and not get bogged down in causes no matter how woke or worthy. Otherwise, bad behaviours – and ultimately crimes – will continue, and recur with the next generation of the ‘political class’ – and the rest of us will be far worse for it.
Regards
The end of Western Civilization? If that means the end of patriarchal abuse of women, Church/clerical abuse of little boys and girls, racist imperialism, a refusal to acknowledge past genocidal injustices against indigenous peoples, etc., let’s cancel it here and now!
A very clear analysis, the point being that Porter’s track record, not only for his misogyny at the least, contains a long list of misdemeanours and rule breaking, the secret trials being only one. On MediaWatch last night, Paul Barry showed the only “trial by media” was against the now deceased, alleged victim, that the ABC showed by the far right Murdoch and other hateful outlets. The way even Arthur Moses inferred any independent inquiry would seek Porter’s guilt (4Corners), for a crime that is not on the table at all now, is further fuel to wild defences of this government’s protection rackets, vengeance and spite.
For how much longer can Morrison’s smiling wall of nothing-to-see-here stand? Two Ministers have called in sick, one for a pre-existing heart condition, and one on mental health leave. Both are at the heart of a continuing public outcry over a perceived culture of sexual misconduct in Parliament.
Can our currently serving parliamentarians truly not see that they collectively run the real risk of being looked at by the Australian electorate with contempt? They are losing our respect, if they haven’t already.
Australia desperately needs a strong leader, and I really don’t care from which side of the isle he/she comes, to lead us out of this morass of screaming, distracting, divisive and destructive trial by public media.
Help!
In fairness, “this morass of screaming, distracting, divisive and destructive trial by public media” is all on the Murdoch media, that has continued to trot out its stable of has been hacks and wannabes. One only had to watch Media Watch last night to confirm that view. Other media, the ABC, and other publications such as this, have been by and large, respectful, stuck to the facts and refuted much of the government’s lying and hubris with fact and logic.
Social media is another matter. However, “the rule of Law” does not preclude this, as one of the principles of the rule of law is, “The law and its administration is subject to open and free criticism by the people, who may assemble without fear.”
https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/principles/
Another principle is , “The judicial system is independent, impartial, open and transparent and provides a fair and prompt trial.” Given that the NSW police are part of the judicial system, would you say that they were “fair and prompt” in their actions to bring this to trial? I would say not, and this fact alone needs to be examined under the rule of law.
I have no doubt that the current government has totally lost its way, and with a year to run on its contract with the Australian people, it is looking more and more like Scott Morrison is doomed to repeat the circumstances of his employment with Travel Australia, and Travel New Zealand, where, in both cases, Morrison departed under a cloud, a year earlier than his contract stipulated, leaving large piles of ordure behind for others to clean up.
Mr Dyer:
you might want to check what is said on Media Watch before accepting it as fact.
Including the most recent episode.
While the program is entertaining, and usually accurate, there are times it is misleading by e.g. citing false claims, material omissions.
That it criticises some aspects of ABC programs does not over come the problem.
It has long ceased to be the reliable repository of truth.
Best wishes
As with Linda Reynolds the new head in the sand technique from Morrison is to give his embattled ministers a long holiday break where they can appear like the poor victims during recovery. It’s just like he does when he goes AWOL himself to avoid answering questions in parliament. The part-time prime minister is giving license to his cabinet to do the same things. It’s called avoiding responsibility and shutting down transparency, stopping any chance parliament can vote, or ask questions during question time. Porter has to play the victim but his track record is one where he never gives anyone else that level of compassionate treatment. Only himself. He has an appalling record. And Reynolds? Well if she is that sick that a little stress knocks her out because of a heart condition, then she should not be in parliament, she cannot do the job, she is too sick.
Morrison hopes that everyone will forget while the media plasters its front pages over nonsense about the Royals. This method will not work in the end because people are getting fed up with his evasive and slippery behaviour. He’s a high stakes gambler and eventually his house made of a pack of cards will crash.