"With a typical blind trust you know where the money came from. It is contributed by the beneficiary on the basis that the trustee then invests it in assets without reference to the beneficiary who is “blind” as to how their money is invested.
“I don’t think that is acceptable in public life. But Porter’s case is much worse than a conventional blind trust because we don’t even know where the money came from. It is so wrong.”
- Former PM Malcolm Turnbull, as quoted Daily Telegraph, 15th Sep 2021.
As the ongoing saga with Attorney General Christian Porter is a movable feast of nonsense, it is hard enough to pin down the facts, much less assign any kind of meaningful analysis to them.
As I understand it, the timeline of events is this:
- The ABC was taken to court to answer a defamation case by the Attorney General Christian Porter; with regards to an historical rape case which they'd hinted at but hadn't explicitly named.
- The identity of the subject of the ABC's reportage was only made public after the Attorney General Christian Porter outed himself in a press conference.
- The ABC were forced to discover their sources in court, in direct violation of existing laws relating to journalism and the right to qualified privilege.
- The Attorney General Christian Porter then had most of the details the defamation case redacted, thus reducing the court to what effectively amounts to a star chamber; which is almost entirely off the public record.
- The ABC which was found to have zero fault in the case, was not awarded its costs to be recovered despite this looking like a frivolous case. The ABC still had to pay for its own legal advice and representation.
- Since it is literally impossible to prove the details of the historical rape case on account of the alleged victim having committed suicide, the Attorney General Christian Porter will never have to answer for the case.
- Since the Attorney General Christian Porter had engaged a legal team, they have issued an invoice for services rendered.
- As Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia Act (1900) provides the disqualification that someone who "iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent... shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives" then to avoid becoming a bankrupted person, the Attorney General Christian Porter set up a Blind Trust where he has no controlling interest.
- The Attorney General Christian Porter also apparently has no idea where more than a million dollars which was deposited into his Blind Trust came from.
- Not only does the Attorney General Christian Porter have no idea where the money came from, he also refuses to ask the trustees to disclose where the money came from.
I should disclose that I am not a lawyer and therefore have no professional qualifications to inform my opinion but speaking as someone who has been in a forensic accounting firm for the not quite two decades, this looks sketchy. From the outside this isn't Dodgy the Clown but the whole entirety of Dodgy Brothers Three-Ring Circus.
There are already regulations in place which require former Prime Ministers and other Cabinet Ministers to prove that they aren’t agents of a foreign government.
There are already regulations which prevent sitting Members of Parliament from receiving donations linked to foreign governments.
Former Senator Sam Dastyari fell foul of these regulations when he had a bill totalling $1,670 paid by a company with links to the Chinese Government.
There are four key differences between Dastyari's case and Porter's case, five which really make this donations scandal obnoxious:
a) We know the amount paid.
b) We know who paid it.
c) That payment effectively ended Mr Dastyari's parliamentary career under Section 44.
d) Mr Dastyari's payment is estimated to be around 500 times smaller.
e) The Attorney General who was responsible for prosecuting the case against Sam Dastyari was Christian Porter.
What I find outrageous about this is that when Sam Dastyari was found to have breached the regulations, it was just and proper that he should resign. Yet Cabinet Minister Christian Porter could be receiving donations from agents of foreign governments, it’s apparently okay for that to be kept secret?
Therein lies a massive problem. While there mightn't be any evidence that the Attorney General has changed policies, tweaked legislation, or perhaps granted favours in a quid pro quo for his unknown financial windfall, it's practically impossible to determine or scrutinise if a conflict of interest exists when the Attorney General doesn't know who has thrown cash at him.
We the general public have no idea, will not be told, and have no idea whether or not the cash deposited in Attorney General Christian Porter's Blind Trust came from legitimate means, colourful identities, crime lords, time lords, international terrorist organisations, domestic think tanks, septic tanks, really generous people, media companies, mining companies, theatre companies; and we won't be told.
All I'm left with is a bunch of questions:
- How did Mr Porter intend to pay his legal bills in the first instance?
- Why would he declare that he received a "blind" payment if he doesn't know about the source?
- Is that an adequate defence?
- Did the money come from nefarious actors?
- Has the Attorney General Christian Porter been offered a golden parachute in the same way that former Premier of NSW Mike Baird was?
- How come as Attorney General, Mr Porter's judgement is so off?
- When exactly did the Prime Minister (Scott Morrison) become aware of this political scandal?
- Does this political scandal even matter?
The answers to these questions and many more will not be revealed in the next thrilling installment of... The End Of Transparency.
Addenda:
30 years ago:
https://www.afr.com/politics/sng-recalls-giving-bags-of-money-19910927-k4jj0
"The next day, with equally vivid recollection, Mr Sng said he made a similar visit with Mrs Garms to Sir Robert Sparkes and handed over another brown envelope containing $100,000, also for the Joh for PM campaign."
- Australian Financial Review, 27th Sep 1991
No comments:
Post a Comment