tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/christian-porter-23718/articlesChristian Porter – The Conversation2023-03-10T05:43:33Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2011652023-03-10T05:43:33Z2023-03-10T05:43:33Z‘Amateurish, rushed and disastrous’: royal commission exposes robodebt as ethically indefensible policy targeting vulnerable people<p>The robodebt royal commission hearings came to an end on Friday. Over the past four months, they have delivered a telling portrait of unaccountable government power.</p>
<p>As they look back on a mass of limited recollections, missing paper and inaction, what are key things Australians should take away?</p>
<h2>‘I’m appalled’</h2>
<p>The first phase of the inquiry was marked by bombshell revelations. Two iron curtains that protect government – legal professional privilege and cabinet confidentiality – were pulled back.</p>
<p>In the opening week, we learned:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>In 2014, Department of Social Services’ <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/31/legal-doubts-over-robodebt-raised-with-government-department-in-2014-inquiry-hears">legal advice</a> on robodebt was a flat “no”. New legislation was needed to raise debts by averaging annual income. Robodebt went ahead without it.</p></li>
<li><p>In 2017, after enormous public outcry, external legal advice was not sought. Instead, a government lawyer reported feeling “pressure” to produce heavily qualified <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/im-appalled-robodet-inquiry-commissioners-shock-at-departments-admission/4gxm8kigw">legal advice</a>. This unpersuasive advice was then used to justify the scheme.</p></li>
<li><p>In 2018, the Department of Social Services, <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/bad-government-on-display-for-all-to-see-in-robo-debt-debacle-20230205-p5chy1">received advice dubbed</a> “catastrophic” for the scheme. It stayed in draft, something lawyers admitted was a common practice. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Confronted by this, Commissioner Catherine Holmes had only <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/05/a-shameful-chapter-how-australias-robodebt-saga-was-allowed-to-unfold">two words</a>: “I’m appalled”.</p>
<p>Without the commission, the standard rules on transparency would have applied. Australians would never have known any of it.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1588063857624449025"}"></div></p>
<h2>Ethically indefensible</h2>
<p>Robodebt is about so much more than just the absence of law. After years of semantics and political rhetoric, the hearings confirmed robodebt as baseless, ethically indefensible policy. </p>
<p>Holmes <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/turnbull-never-considered-robo-debt-legality-20230306-p5cpp9">rebuked</a> the program as “amateurish, rushed and disastrous”.</p>
<p>The core concept at the heart of robodebt was the tactical imposition of administrative burden on vulnerable people. Instead of the previous system, where evidence would be gathered direct from employers, the onus of proof was reversed. </p>
<p>The hearings revealed the department’s own budget <a href="https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2023-03/transcript-hearing-day-41-3-march.pdf">assumed most people would give up</a>. Hundreds of thousands would effectively cop an averaged and inaccurate debt. </p>
<p>Robodebt should never again be framed as a technological glitch or a legal oversight. It was the active and direct exploitation of people’s vulnerability. The department’s own research into the letters sent confirmed they <a href="https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2023-03/transcript-hearing-day-41-3-march.pdf">generated terror and confusion</a>. We learnt it even held modelling that debts raised under the programme were inflated.</p>
<p>We have built a dense, highly conditional welfare system, which concentrates enormous, life-changing powers in the hands of government decision-makers. The hearings delivered a portrait of a system warped by imbalances of power and a lack of access to justice. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/robodebt-was-a-fiasco-with-a-cost-we-have-yet-to-fully-appreciate-150169">Robodebt was a fiasco with a cost we have yet to fully appreciate</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Welfare cop</h2>
<p>So what of the politicians? Their appearances had one clear theme: they positioned themselves as the victims of the Australian Public Service.</p>
<p>Scott Morrison indicated he was entitled to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-14/scott-morrison-fronts-robodebt-inquiry/101771092">rely on a checklist</a> that read “no legislation needed”. Christian Porter relied on the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/02/christian-porter-tells-inquiry-someone-in-department-assured-him-robodebt-was-legal-but-i-cant-recall-who">verbal assurance</a> of a public servant that the system was above board.</p>
<p>For hours, we cycled through the same phrases: “I did not know”. “I was not told”. “I was entitled to rely on public servants”.</p>
<p>In our Westminster system, a minister is responsible for the actions of their department. The hearings have revealed that to be abstract fiction rather than functional reality. While a storm of suffering and advocacy raged, politicians and their offices didn’t ask even the simplest questions about the core issue.</p>
<p>What they focused on was seeking political benefit – right from the earliest press releases, trumpeting the arrival <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/17/how-morrison-launched-australias-strong-welfare-cop-and-the-pain-robodebt-left-in-its-wake">of a</a> “strong welfare cop on the beat”. In the pursuit of this political brand, we saw egregious actions ranging from deliberately evading questions to approving the <a href="https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/01/31/shut-this-story-down-minister-distributed-private-centrelink-data-after-negative-robodebt-media/">release of the personal information</a> to “correct the record”.</p>
<p>Moving past individuals, our focus needs to be on tackling the broader ecosystem that produced “welfare cop”. The phrase speaks powerfully to how we have fallen into a social security system driven by shortcut cultural images, rather than on supporting work, families and care.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1266280648903294980"}"></div></p>
<h2>Taken advantage of</h2>
<p>Most people will not have had time to follow the commission. Media coverage, predictably, surged for “politician days”. They missed the most powerful and important contributions. </p>
<p>Victims of the scheme spoke up for what should matter, what a social security system needs to protect and deliver. Sandra Bevan, a single mother of four boys, who works in disability support, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-16/qld-robodebt-scheme-government-royal-commission-victim/101780890">told us</a> about the experience of correctly reporting income and not being listened to.</p>
<p>It was so traumatic that she swore she would “never access Centrelink benefits ever again”. Bevan is a powerful reminder of where courage, strength and leadership are found in our society.</p>
<p>In the final block, another victim, Matthew Thompson, summed up <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-01/qld-robodebt-scheme-royal-commission-matthew-thompson/102039536">what he felt drove robodebt</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It seems to me that the powerful people are always able to take advantage of vulnerable people, as the gap between rich and poorer increases still. And no matter how many royal commissions we have, that always seems to be the case. And I hope this royal commission can change that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Holmes could only give <a href="https://twitter.com/DarrenODonovan/status/1630733001624788995">a simple human response</a>. Somehow, all at once, it spoke to her commitment, the limits on her role, the history of royal commissions and the reality of the system as it currently is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I’m afraid I can’t promise you that. But we’ll do what we can.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In a room in Brisbane, we have learnt of the scale of problems in front of us. Only a broader societal change, not just a royal commission, will ever deliver the change we need.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201165/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Darren O'Donovan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Robodebt should never again be framed as a technological glitch or a legal oversight. It was the active and direct exploitation of people’s vulnerability.Darren O'Donovan, Senior Lecturer in Administrative Law, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1887472022-08-15T10:13:35Z2022-08-15T10:13:35ZView from The Hill: Morrison’s passion for control trashed conventions and accountability<p>The only credible explanation for Scott Morrison personally installing himself, as an undisclosed ministerial partner, in several portfolios is the former prime minister’s passion for control. </p>
<p>The fact he didn’t tell senior colleagues, let alone the public, of this strange arrangement reflects another of his passions – for secrecy. </p>
<p>The revelation of the arrangement has further tarnished Morrison’s already battered reputation after his humiliating election loss.</p>
<p>As of late Monday, Morrison had given no public explanation for his highly unorthodox and indefensible behaviour towards his ministers. </p>
<p>He texted Sky, which sought comment, that since leaving the prime ministership he had not “engaged in any day to day politics”. Sky quickly pointed out he’s still in parliament. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1559032433529393152"}"></div></p>
<p>Morrison’s odd conduct was revealed in a new book, Plagued, by Simon Benson and Geoff Chambers, journalists with The Australian. </p>
<p>They wrote that early in the pandemic Morrison “hatched a radical and until now secret plan […] He would swear himself in as health minister alongside [Greg] Hunt. </p>
<p>"Such a move was without precedent, let alone being done in secret, but the trio [which included attorney-general Christian Porter] saw it as an elegant solution to the problem they were trying to solve – safeguarding against any one minister having absolute power.</p>
<p>”‘I trust you, mate,’ Morrison told Hunt, ‘but I’m swearing myself in as health minister, too.’</p>
<p>“It would also be useful if one of them caught Covid and became incapacitated. Hunt not only accepted the measure but welcomed it. </p>
<p>"Considering the economic measures the government was taking, and the significant fiscal implications and debt that was being incurred, Morrison also swore himself in as finance minister alongside Mathias Cormann. He wanted to ensure there were two people who had their hands on the purse strings,” Benson and Chambers wrote.</p>
<p>This “elegant solution” was anything but. In allegedly protecting against a minister having too much power, it was just increasing the prime minister’s power. As for a minister becoming incapacitated: replacing them quickly is easy. </p>
<p>Unlike Hunt, Cormann didn’t even receive the courtesy of being told he had a silent ministerial partner. </p>
<p>Morrison did not exercise any powers as finance minister but it was another story in resources, as we have learned as more information comes out. </p>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/scott-morrison-appointed-by-gg-to-take-control-of-department-of-industry-science-energy-and-resources-11months-before-he-scuttled-offshore-gas-project/news-story/38338e07f09df91fa68409cde43e013c">The Australian</a>, in April 2021 Morrison was appointed minister for the portfolio industry, science, energy and resources. </p>
<p>Later that year, with the election approaching, the PM used his power to veto the permit for the PEP11 gas exploration off the NSW coast. This was a highly political move to try to save and win votes. The bid, however, was unsuccessful – all four backbenchers whose names were on the press release lost their seats. </p>
<p>Then resources minister Keith Pitt – who had another view on the exploration issue – has indicated he knew of the dual ministerial power some time before and wasn’t happy. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-scott-morrison-was-sworn-in-to-several-portfolios-other-than-prime-minister-during-the-pandemic-how-can-this-be-done-188718">Explainer: Scott Morrison was sworn in to several portfolios other than prime minister during the pandemic. How can this be done?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Morrison at the time was asked about his earlier line that the ultimate decision on the drilling lay with Pitt. “I decided to take the decision as the prime minister, which I’m authorised to do,” he said. </p>
<p>In retrospect, his wording was precise, alluding to his own ministerial power.</p>
<p>The matter is now in court, where Morrison is named as “the responsible Commonwealth minister”.</p>
<p>Barnaby Joyce, Nationals leader before the election, knew of Pitt’s situation (as did Joyce’s predecessor, Michael McCormack) although he wasn’t aware of the other double ups. </p>
<p>David Littleproud, now Nationals leader, on Monday described Morrison’s behaviour as “pretty ordinary”. “If you have a cabinet government, you trust your cabinet.” </p>
<p>Opposition leader Peter Dutton was in the dark, saying, “Obviously the then prime minister had his reasons, his logic for it, but it was not a decision I was party to or was aware of. It was a decision-making process that he’s made.”</p>
<p>Anthony Albanese has sought advice from the Solicitor-General and was being briefed on Monday about the arrangement. </p>
<p>“This is extraordinary and unprecedented,” Albanese said. Morrison had been running “a shadow government that was operating in the shadows”. </p>
<p>It was “the sort of tin-pot activity that we would ridicule if it was in a non-democratic country”.</p>
<p>Governor-General David Hurley indicated in a statement from his office that the constitutional provisions had been satisfied. </p>
<p>“The Governor-General, following normal process and acting on the advice of the government of the day, appointed former prime minister Morrison to administer portfolios other than the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,” the statement said.</p>
<p>“The appointments were made consistently with section 64 of the Constitution.</p>
<p>"It is not uncommon for ministers to be appointed to administer departments other than their portfolio responsibility. These appointments do not require a swearing-in ceremony – the Governor-General signs an administrative instrument on the advice of the prime minister.”</p>
<p>This highlights the different between what is legal and what is proper.</p>
<p>Morrison was savvy enough to ensure his arrangement did not flout the law. But it did flout the conventions of how cabinet government and ministerial accountability should work. </p>
<p>Morrison treated senior colleagues with disdain. </p>
<p>He treated the public as mugs, undeserving of the right to know. </p>
<p>But, though the voters had no idea of this strange and narcissistic arrangement, they knew him well enough to decide in May that he wasn’t the leader they wanted.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188747/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The only credible explanation for Scott Morrison personally installing himself, as an undisclosed ministerial partner, in several portfolios is the former prime minister’s passion for control.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1731412021-12-03T01:27:19Z2021-12-03T01:27:19ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on government scandal and Labor policy<p>University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Professor Paddy Nixon discuss the week in politics.</p>
<p>This week they discuss the new COVID variant that has arrived in Australia called Omicron. Because of this, the government as decided to delay opening the international border to skilled workers and international students for a fortnight. But Scott Morrison has stressed he wants Australia to keep moving to COVID normal and does not want any further lockdowns.</p>
<p>They also canvass the release of the highly anticipated Jenkins Report into the parliamentary workplace. The report exposed that one in three people have experienced some form of sexual harassment while working there. The release of the report didn’t stop politicians from acting badly though, with a Liberal Senator accused of barking at Independent Jacqui Lambi, and Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe making an offensive and sexist comment at Liberal Hollie Hughes. </p>
<p>The final sitting week for the year saw former Attorney-General Christian Porter and Health Minister Greg Hunt announcing they won’t contest the election. There were also new allegations against Education Minister Alan Tudge by his former staffer who accused the minster of acting violently towards her. Tudge has now stood aside pending an inquiry. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_8GZccQmQVU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173141/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan discusses the political week that was with Vice-Chancellor Paddy Nixon.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1730772021-12-02T11:43:38Z2021-12-02T11:43:38ZGrattan on Friday: Allegation against Alan Tudge hits Morrison government where it hurts<p>In a sensational end to a grotty final 2021 sitting week, former Liberal staffer Rachelle Miller’s claim a minister had acted violently towards her was carefully timed to underline Kate Jenkins’ scathing indictment of the parliamentary workplace.</p>
<p>Education Minister Alan Tudge was forced to stand aside after Miller – who returned to Parliament House to make her statement – accused him of kicking her out of bed when her phone rang at 4am.</p>
<p>She said it happened during a 2017 work trip, when she and Tudge were in a hotel in Kalgoorlie, where then-PM Malcolm Turnbull was also staying.</p>
<p>Miller was Tudge’s media adviser. The two had what Miller has described as a consensual affair, but now says was more complicated. “It was [an] emotionally and on one occasion, physically abusive relationship.”</p>
<p>It’s notable how different Scott Morrison’s reaction has been to this Miller allegation, compared with her earlier complaints about Tudge, made last year on the ABC’s Four Corners.</p>
<p>Morrison pushed those aside, dismissing them as history that had been dealt with. In this instance, he immediately referred the matter to an investigation, to be conducted by Vivienne Thom, former inspector-general of intelligence and security.</p>
<p>Admittedly Miller has now gone a step further in accusing Tudge – who flatly denies the claim – of violence.</p>
<p>But the political difference is the timing. Miller’s allegation follows all that has come out this year about bad behaviour in Parliament House, triggered by Brittany Higgins’ allegation she was raped in 2019, and now documented in the 452-page Jenkins report.</p>
<p>On issues relating to women, Morrison walks among landmines. Thursday’s Miller claim showed how dangerously and unexpectedly one can detonate.</p>
<p>It’s hard to know the extent to which Morrison’s so-called “women’s problem” will cost him votes at the election. But one seat where woman power might be significant is the <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/jillian-broadbent-and-the-battle-for-wentworth-20211201-p59ds2">Sydney marginal electorate of Wentworth</a>, where independent candidate Allegra Spender (the late Carla Zampatti’s daughter) is being backed by female corporate high-flyers including Christine Holgate, the former Australia Post boss. </p>
<p>Holgate accused Morrison of bullying with his extraordinary parliamentary attack on her over rewarding employees with Cartier watches. What goes around comes around. </p>
<p>The Sex Discrimination Commissioner’s description of a noxious political workplace was on show at every turn this week.</p>
<p>Immediately after Tuesday’s release of her report, opposition and government indulged in mutual sledging in question time.</p>
<p>In the Senate, Victorian Liberal David Van was accused of making dog noises when independent Jacqui Lambie was speaking. He apologised for interjecting but denied he’d made any animal sound.</p>
<p>On Wednesday Greens senator Lidia Thorpe made a particularly offensive remark to NSW Liberal Hollie Hughes, saying during an altercation, “at least I keep my legs shut”.</p>
<p>Hughes on Thursday said she took from this “that had I kept my legs shut, I wouldn’t have a child with autism”. Thorpe, who’d apologised, denied the suggestion she was referring to Hughes’ family.</p>
<p>Hughes told Sky: “Everyone – MPs, senators, staffers, everybody – needs to hold themselves to account. We’re adults. This is a professional working environment and people should behave that way.”</p>
<p>To which one might say, “If only.” And, more to the point, one might ask: “Well, why don’t they?”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/tudge-stands-aside-while-claim-of-kicking-former-staffer-investigated-173064">Tudge stands aside while claim of kicking former staffer investigated</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Jenkins report has multiple recommendations, based on a forensic review of the culture of the parliamentary workplace.</p>
<p>Both government and opposition loudly lamented the situation she documented, but neither has committed to full implementation of what she has proposed.</p>
<p>Jenkins digs down to the many drivers and risk factors contributing to bullying and sexual harassment, which she identifies as including power imbalances, gender inequality, lack of accountability, bad leadership, confusion about standards, long hours, stress, alcohol, travel and a work-hard-play-hard mentality.</p>
<p>Miller’s account of the Kalgoorlie night appears to have involved a number of these.</p>
<p>But explanations are not excuses, and it’s hard to go beyond a very basic point.</p>
<p>While many parliamentarians – who are at the centre of the Parliament House “ecosystem” – behave well, too many simply don’t believe they need to follow the standards the community has the right to expect of them.</p>
<p>If they conducted themselves properly as well as setting high standards for their staff, Parliament House would be on its way to becoming a half-decent workplace.</p>
<p>One point that’s been made is that politicians, in taking on staff and running their offices, are their own small businesses, but they don’t have the skill set to run these businesses.</p>
<p>That task might be unfamiliar for them, but surely not that hard to get on top of. At least that might be the view of many small-business people around the country, who have to confront their own (albeit different and often more difficult) challenges.</p>
<p>And as for the bad conduct in the chambers, there is just no excuse. It shows massive disrespect to those who pay the parliamentarians’ salaries.</p>
<p>For Scott Morrison the past fortnight has been deeply frustrating, as well as politically risky.</p>
<p>Coalition rebels helped stymie the government’s legislate program, such as it was.</p>
<p>A House of Representatives vote on the Religious Discrimination Bill had to be put off to prevent a revolt by moderate Liberals. This bill will now face two inquiries over the summer.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-a-study-in-contrast-porter-and-hunt-to-leave-parliament-172969">View from The Hill: A study in contrast, Porter and Hunt to leave Parliament</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The government’s promise to introduce legislation for an integrity commission has been turned into a farce by the PM. On the back of the ICAC investigation of former NSW premier Gladys Berijiklian, Morrison has dug in behind the unrevised model, indicating he won’t bring in the legislation because Labor won’t agree to that model, which is widely criticised as flawed.</p>
<p>After everything that has happened this week, and what hasn’t been able to happen, you’d wonder why the government would want parliament to sit again before the election.</p>
<p>Sittings never work politically for this government, and unless it could get its two rebel senators and the two Hanson senators to lift their boycotts on government legislation – they are protesting against the refusal to override state vaccine mandates – and calm other rebels, legislation that was contested wouldn’t get through.</p>
<p>Queensland Liberal Gerard Rennick, asked on Thursday whether he would continue his boycott into next year, said it would depend on what the federal government did on the mandates between now and then. Hanson’s spokesman had a similar message.</p>
<p>The draft sitting calendar for 2022, issued this week, has parliament returning in February, and a March 29 budget. Morrison can always tear this up in favour of a March election but he’d obviously prefer a budget to set him up for a May poll.</p>
<p>But Health Minister Greg Hunt and former minister Christian Porter were taking no chances, this week both announcing they are not running again.</p>
<p>It might have been a momentous week – in a bad way – but the conversation will abruptly change on Friday, when Labor finally releases its much-awaited climate policy.</p>
<p>It’s stating the obvious to say this is a big day for the opposition, which has had an internal debate over whether to make the policy small target (only a little different from the government’s) or go for something bolder, to amp up the differentiation on the climate issue.</p>
<p>On Sunday Anthony Albanese will hold a rally, with a likely further policy announcement. </p>
<p>“We will make sure we are kicking with the wind in the fourth quarter,” Albanese likes to say. Between now and mid-December, when he is intending to go on holidays, the crowd will be watching how well the opposition leader connects boot and ball.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173077/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Education Minister Alan Tudge has been forced to stand aside as former staffer Rachelle Miller accuses him of acting violently towards her.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1729692021-12-01T11:23:40Z2021-12-01T11:23:40ZView from The Hill: A study in contrast, Porter and Hunt to leave Parliament<p>One will depart from parliament a deeply disappointed man, dragged down by scandal, with hopes for a brilliant career dashed by an allegation surfacing from his youth.</p>
<p>The other will leave with a solid record of performance, despite some criticism and ambition for higher things unfulfilled.</p>
<p>Christian Porter, 51, on Wednesday announced he will not run again for his Western Australian seat of Pearce. It was a surprise to no one.
Health Minister Greg Hunt, 56, is also set to quit at next year’s poll, with his announcement due on Thursday.</p>
<p>Both had previously said they were recontesting their seats.</p>
<p>Porter – subject of a historical rape allegation (that he strongly denies) – had little practical alternative but to quit.</p>
<p>His political career was effectively over. His guilt or innocence could never be proven, because the woman is dead.</p>
<p>His statement on Wednesday contained a note of bitterness. “There are few, if any, constants left in modern politics.” he said. “Perhaps the only certainty now is that there appears no limit to what some will say or allege or do to gain an advantage over a perceived enemy.”</p>
<p>After a high-flying career in state politics, Porter entered federal parliament at the 2013 election, rising to the pinnacle of attorney-general, before the rape allegation began a fall that happened in slow motion.</p>
<p>First he was moved to another portfolio, while remaining in cabinet. Later he was forced to go to the backbench after refusing to disclose secret donors to his legal costs in his defamation action against the ABC.</p>
<p>In terms of his political fortunes, his decision to launch the defamation case was a massive misjudgement, all the stranger given his legal expertise. If he hadn’t done so, he’d likely still be in cabinet, because he would not have needed the money from the secret donors.</p>
<p>Porter was a competent attorney-general, much more qualified than his successor Michaelia Cash. He saw himself as a future prime minister, and many observers and colleagues regarded him as potentially competitive for the leadership.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/government-shuts-down-move-to-refer-christian-porters-secret-funds-to-privileges-inquiry-170300">Government shuts down move to refer Christian Porter's secret funds to privileges inquiry</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>One wonders, if Porter had remained attorney-general, whether the government would have progressed further on an integrity commission. He prepared the original model, from which the prime minister now won’t budge. If Porter had still been in the job, he might have had the authority to persuade Morrison to accept some necessary changes. </p>
<p>Politically, Porter seemed to have it all, until he had nothing at all, and Liberal tacticians were weighing up whether he would be a liability in his electorate, which is on a 5.2% margin. The seat is a worry for the government but sources believe it will be easier with a fresh candidate.</p>
<p>In contrast Hunt, who might lack the lofty intellect of Porter, will have the legacy of his part (shared with others, including the states) in Australia’s strong health record in managing COVID, despite some negatives on the ledger.</p>
<p>Hunt has been indefatigable in a difficult pandemic world, where advice is necessarily always changing and the outlook often uncertain.</p>
<p>One of his tools of trade, in his public presentations, has been a command of numbers, which gush out in his press conferences and interviews. He’s the positive spinner. Mistakes are not admitted.</p>
<p>On the downside, however, were the missteps in vaccine ordering and the slow rollout that had the government on the back foot for months. Hunt’s health department came under increasing criticism and a military man was appointed roll-out surpremo.</p>
<p>Earlier, the nation had been shocked by the 2020 wave of deaths among aged care residents. Although multiple factors were involved, aged care is a federal responsibility, coming under the health department, and what happened showed the vulnerabilities and lack of preparedness in the sector.</p>
<p>The pandemic catapulted Hunt into the centre of federal government decision-making over the past two years. His prospects had looked very different when, in the leadership turmoil of 2018, he was trounced for the deputy Liberal leadership by his good friend Josh Frydenberg.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-assertive-liberal-moderates-give-scott-morrison-curry-172617">Grattan on Friday: Assertive Liberal moderates give Scott Morrison curry</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>That vote demonstrated he would rise no further in the Liberal hierarchy, and if it hadn’t been for COVID he’d have been in the ministerial background.</p>
<p>His decision to leave parliament has been rumoured for some time. His Victorian seat of Flinders is on 5.6% and the Liberals are not particularly worried about it. </p>
<p>Hunt came from a political family – his late father Alan was a Victorian government minister. Elected in 2001, Hunt became a parliamentary secretary in the Howard government.</p>
<p>In opposition, he was spokesman on climate change and environment, which involved some slick footwork when Malcolm Turnbull was replaced by Tony Abbott, given the two leaders’ totally different views on climate policy.</p>
<p>In government, as environment minister Hunt put into place the Coalition’s minimalist climate policy. After a brief time in the industry portfolio he was shifted to health in early 2017.</p>
<p>He’s been very attuned to the retail politics of the portfolio, often announcing drugs added to the pharmaceutical benefits list with a news conference, sometimes accompanied by a beneficiary.</p>
<p>In personal terms, Hunt is a volatile character, liable to blow up at people. His then departmental head, Martin Bowles, formally complained about him after one incident a few years ago. Bowles wasn’t the only senior bureaucrat to find him difficult to deal with.</p>
<p>Hunt, who in his youth had a plan for his life, will move on easily and seamlessly to the next stage, whatever it is. For Porter, who will return to the law, rebuilding will be a hard slog, and the thought of what might have been will never leave him.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172969/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In a shock to no one, former Attorney-General Christian Porter announces he will not run again for his seat of Pearce. Meanwhile Health Minister Greg Hunt is also set to quit at next year’s electionMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1705302021-10-27T19:12:49Z2021-10-27T19:12:49ZAccountability is under threat. Parliament must urgently reset the balance<p>All Australians have a stake in our nation’s good governance. The past week has provided plenty of reasons to be concerned about the Morrison government’s disregard of core tenets of Australian democracy in its quest for electoral advantage.</p>
<p>I can’t recall an Australian government that has been as blatant in its disdain for accountability as the one led by Scott Morrison. Nor has there been one that has more assiduously bred the culture of secrecy that permeates from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) down. </p>
<p>Its contempt for checks and balances, resentment of scrutiny and preparedness to trash long-standing conventions is widely observed among journalists, experts and practitioners – including <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/05/menacing-controlling-wallpaper-julia-banks-says-her-three-months-under-scott-morrison-were-gut-wrenching">former Coalition members</a>. Former <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/christian-porter-s-blind-trust-to-be-examined-along-with-anonymous-donors-20211021-p591xa.html">prime minister Malcolm Turnbull</a> describes “a culture of entitlement, a culture of non-accountability” within the government that he claims to be “deeply troubled by”.</p>
<p>This culture was on display again in the parliament last week, when the government appeared to <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/porter-escapes-committee-examination-of-whether-blind-trust-broke-parliament-s-rules-20211020-p591pv.html">defy the Speaker</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/helenhainesindi/status/1450745214134411273">exclude the votes of independent crossbenchers</a> to defeat a procedural motion to refer the matter of Christian Porter’s blind trust to the House of Representatives Privileges Committee. </p>
<p>Tony Smith had ruled there was a “prima facie case” for the Committee to investigate, but in a move Labor claimed was <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/partyroom/party-room-net-zero-political-integrity-blind-trust-climate/13596812">unprecedented in the 120 years of the Federal parliament</a>, Leader of the Government in the House Peter Dutton opposed the Speaker’s ruling, mobilising Coalition MPs to win the vote. </p>
<p>Member for Indi <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/the-cities-may-be-opening-but-australia-s-politics-are-closing-down-20211021-p59202">Helen Haines said</a> Dutton had told her it would be “impractical” to count the votes of independent crossbench attending remotely, despite this being routine in the Senate since September 2020.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1450745214134411273"}"></div></p>
<p>Much ink has been spilled documenting the Morrison government’s dubious record on integrity matters. These include the rorting and misuse of public funds through discretionary grants programs, its refusal to conform to reasonable expectations of accountability to parliament or answer questions from the media, its unwillingness to enforce ministerial or other codes of conduct, or to concede accumulating evidence of widespread abuses of power with respect to public appointments. </p>
<p>The parliament, like the national cabinet, is merely the latest arena to showcase Morrison’s audacity, given his slim majority and the deep fractures within his government.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428689/original/file-20211027-13-1r9ty1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428689/original/file-20211027-13-1r9ty1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428689/original/file-20211027-13-1r9ty1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428689/original/file-20211027-13-1r9ty1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428689/original/file-20211027-13-1r9ty1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428689/original/file-20211027-13-1r9ty1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428689/original/file-20211027-13-1r9ty1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Speaker Tony Smith was overruled by the government on referring the Porter blind trust matter to the privileges committee, an unprecedented move in Australian politics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Whatever it takes’ approach gains momentum</h2>
<p>Political scientist <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/power-without-purpose/">James Walter</a> argues Morrison embodies the decades-long move to the centralisation and predominance of the leader in Australian politics. Morrison has leveraged and strengthened the institutional and personal power of the prime ministership, including an inner court of trusted loyalists and a large and powerful PMO. It asserts discipline and control across the government, including the public service. </p>
<p>Morrison’s PMO has developed a reputation for backgrounding against rivals and punishing critics. His department, headed by former chief of staff Phil Gaetjens, has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-scott-morrison-becomes-tangled-in-his-own-spider-web-157596">accused of enabling the prime minister to evade accountability and scrutiny</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-scott-morrison-becomes-tangled-in-his-own-spider-web-157596">View from The Hill: Scott Morrison becomes tangled in his own spider web</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Australia is not the only Westminster-style system grappling with the trend towards an increasingly powerful political executive. In the United Kingdom, similar concerns have been raised about the extent to which unwritten “conventions” intended to guide political practice – premised on those holding power exercising self-restraint in the long-term public interest – are now sufficient to ensure appropriate standards of behaviour and respect for constitutional norms. </p>
<p>Since the Brexit referendum in 2016, a series of “<a href="https://consoc.org.uk/publications/good-chaps-no-more-safeguarding-the-constitution-in-stressful-times-by-andrew-blick-and-peter-hennessy/">constitutional abuses</a>” has occurred in the UK. <a href="https://consoc.org.uk/publications/good-chaps-no-more-safeguarding-the-constitution-in-stressful-times-by-andrew-blick-and-peter-hennessy/">Andrew Blick and Peter Hennessy</a> observe:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[The abuses] have touched upon many of the main government organs: the Cabinet, the Civil Service, Parliament, the judiciary, the devolved institutions, and even the monarchy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These have brought into question whether the “good chap” theory that has underpinned the British political tradition (and also informs Australia’s) remains a sufficient bulwark against an overweening executive.</p>
<p>The flexibility of an unwritten constitution, based on restraint and mutual respect for governing norms, has served Britain and other Westminster-style systems well. However, <a href="https://consoc.org.uk/publications/good-chaps-no-more-safeguarding-the-constitution-in-stressful-times-by-andrew-blick-and-peter-hennessy/">Blick and Hennessy</a> argue: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>For the system to work, ministers must exercise [their] power responsibly and be willing to cooperate with oversight mechanisms to an appropriate extent. </p>
<p>[…] If general standards of good behaviour among senior politicians can no longer be taken for granted, then neither can the sustenance of key constitutional principles. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>More effective ways need to be found to promote a culture of good behaviour among office-holders. This may include formally codifying expectations of behaviour and safeguards to protect the rule of law and strengthen the institutions of governance, including the civil service, parliament and the judiciary.</p>
<p>In 2020, Britain’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-committee-on-standards-in-public-life">Committee on Standards in Public Life</a> launched a review of “the strengths and weaknesses of the institutions, policies and processes that implement ethical standards in Westminster and beyond”. The review is being conducted against the backdrop of the <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/3b1b2a59-f998-468e-90bc-8129d31793f5">Greensill lobbying scandal</a> that involved (among numerous others) former prime minister David Cameron, and claims of a “<a href="https://www.ft.com/content/9230bc88-9038-40a3-a785-14e78253ecd9">chumocracy</a>”, where access, positions and honours are a quid pro quo for mates and political donors. </p>
<p>It also comes amid criticism of the impact of informal, personalised networks surrounding British ministers on other institutions, notably the civil service. COVID-19 has exposed Boris Johnson’s shambolic governance style, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/f664e47d-e4a4-47ad-b170-f62961370b73">his cavalier approach to the truth</a> and preparedness to breach long-standing constitutional norms. This culture has extended to former supporters such as <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57882892">top adviser Dominic Cummings</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428690/original/file-20211027-25-1qlvqzq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428690/original/file-20211027-25-1qlvqzq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428690/original/file-20211027-25-1qlvqzq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428690/original/file-20211027-25-1qlvqzq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428690/original/file-20211027-25-1qlvqzq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428690/original/file-20211027-25-1qlvqzq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428690/original/file-20211027-25-1qlvqzq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has also been criticised for a lack of accountability in government.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AP/Alberto Pezzali</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The case for a federal integrity commission is overwhelming</h2>
<p>If, as recent performance in the Australian government suggests, “general standards of good behaviour among senior politicians can no longer be taken for granted”, the case for a federal integrity commission with strong powers is overwhelming. </p>
<p>But last week, as the Coalition closed ranks to shield Porter from scrutiny, Morrison told independent MP Helen Haines his government would not facilitate debate of her <a href="https://www.helenhaines.org/bills/integrity">Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill</a>. </p>
<p>Like his “forever friend” Boris Johnson, Morrison seems little inclined to accept restraints on government power. But as last week also showed, even predominant prime ministers face risks when they overplay their hand. </p>
<p>Coalition MPs voted down the motion to refer Porter to the privileges committee on party lines. But <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/christian-porter-s-blind-trust-to-be-examined-along-with-anonymous-donors-20211021-p591xa.html">many MPs, reportedly angry</a>, demanded a meeting with Dutton. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-porters-funding-from-a-blind-trust-is-an-integrity-test-for-morrison-168112">Grattan on Friday: Porter's funding from a 'blind trust' is an integrity test for Morrison</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>On the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/insiders/from-the-couch/13601052">ABC’s Insiders</a> program, Niki Savva, who like Smith worked for former Treasurer Peter Costello, argued that </p>
<blockquote>
<p>by doing what they did, they [the government] trashed the parliament, they undermined their own Speaker - they looked like they were trying to hide something. They left their own MPs exposed to very hostile reaction from constituents about why they were defending Porter and they’ve given extra ammunition to the independents who are fighting on integrity issues.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Late on Tuesday and directly addressing controversy surrounding last week’s motion, the Speaker made a <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansardr/25167/toc_pdf/House%2520of%2520Representatives_2021_10_26.pdf%3BfileType=application%252Fpdf">statement to the House</a> about the matter. </p>
<p>Smith noted that, in accordance with House of Representatives practice, he did not make a “ruling”, but gave precedence for a motion to be moved. In doing so, he was </p>
<blockquote>
<p>simply allowing the House the opportunity to consider a motion immediately and debate and decide on whether the matter should be referred to the committee for inquiry and report.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Similarly, the National Party sorely tested the prime minister’s authority. Its agreement to the net zero by 2050 target was achieved despite Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce’s opposition, although the Nationals leader accepted the decision of his party room.</p>
<p>As the PM touted his net zero by 2050 plan, it has been galling to hear both he and Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor invoke the “Westminster system” and conventions of Cabinet confidentiality while at the same time ignoring key traditions of “responsible government” – including accountability to parliament. These had already been comprehensively trashed by Joyce and fellow National Bridget McKenzie, whose pretence of “outsiderism” despite their place at the apex of power would have been laughable if not so cynically damaging.</p>
<p>Lacking a federal integrity commission and anything remotely resembling a Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Australian parliament is increasingly an outlier. It is diminished and demeaned by an emboldened political executive, which, as we saw in 2019, will stop at nothing to secure its return to office. </p>
<p>It’s time for the nation’s legislators to exercise constitutional stewardship by resetting the balance. That will require courage from moderate Liberal backbenchers, whose compliance under their leader’s whip hand may have electoral consequences.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article has been updated to reflect that the Speaker did not make a ruling on the Porter matter but instead allowed the House the opportunity to decide if it should be referred to the privileges committee.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/170530/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>During her academic career, Anne Tiernan won research funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australia and New Zealand School of Government. </span></em></p>The Coalition government has shown contempt for accountability. It’s time more was done to safeguard standards and our democracy.Anne Tiernan, Adjunct Professor of Politics. Griffith Business School, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1703002021-10-20T10:59:55Z2021-10-20T10:59:55ZGovernment shuts down move to refer Christian Porter’s secret funds to privileges inquiry<p>The government has blocked an inquiry into whether Christian Porter breached parliamentary privilege in refusing to reveal who donated to his legal costs.</p>
<p>This was despite Speaker Tony Smith giving the Labor motion for the reference precedence to be debated, which would normally see the house send the matter to the privileges committee.</p>
<p>Manager of opposition business Tony Burke said this was the first time a government had voted against a privileges referral to which a speaker had given precedence.</p>
<p>After Labor argued on Monday Porter should be referred, Smith announced on Wednesday that “based on my careful consideration of all of the information available to me, I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out”.</p>
<p>Smith made it clear that saying this “does not imply a conclusion that a breach … has occurred”.</p>
<p>House of Representative practice specifies that to grant precedence to a privilege motion the speaker must be satisfied “a prima facie case of contempt or breach of privilege has been made out”.</p>
<p>The government opposed the motion, which was then voted down.</p>
<p>Burke said the government had abandoned a principle that had been a “a key protection against corruption” since the federal parliament came into existence.</p>
<p>“That means we may never learn the truth about who paid Mr Porter’s legal bills and what they may expect in return.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/christian-porter-quits-cabinet-refusing-to-find-out-who-gave-him-money-for-legal-costs-168246">Christian Porter quits cabinet, refusing to find out who gave him money for legal costs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>"This is a disgraceful, shameful moment in Australian political history,” Burke said in a statement.</p>
<p>Porter was forced to step down from the ministry last month because he would not supply names of those who donated to a “blind trust” to help with his bills for the defamation action he took against the ABC. He said he didn’t know the names, and was “not prepared to seek to break the confidentiality of those people who contributed to my legal fees”. </p>
<p>The leader of the house, Peter Dutton, in opposing the reference, told the house there was a much broader issue because there were “a number of other cases which are of a similar ilk”.</p>
<p>Dutton has written to privileges committee chairman Russell Broadbent asking the committee to clarify what the MPs’ register requires when members receive third party contributions or assistance, including from crowd funding and political parties, for personal legal matters, or any other matters.</p>
<p>The letter specifies assistance for legal costs in the form of financial or non-financial contributions and provision of legal services on a reduced or no-fee basis.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-porters-funding-from-a-blind-trust-is-an-integrity-test-for-morrison-168112">Grattan on Friday: Porter's funding from a 'blind trust' is an integrity test for Morrison</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In parliament Dutton instanced crowd funding by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young for her legal action against then senator David Leyonhjelm.</p>
<p>He pointed to a number of names that obviously were made up.</p>
<p>Hanson-Young said she had received 1800 donations, with only eight donations above the disclosable $300 threshold.</p>
<p>“I have declared all donations in the spirit of members and senators interests and Mr Porter should do the same.”</p>
<p>A spokeswoman said those with false names were all under the threshold.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/170300/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Government has blocked an inquiry that could determine whether Christian Porter breached parliamentary privilege by refusing reveal the names of those who donated to his legal costsMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1691042021-10-01T08:06:14Z2021-10-01T08:06:14ZPromotions for Morrison allies in post-Porter ministerial reshuffle<p>Scott Morrison has promoted two of his closest allies in a reshuffle that follows Christian Porter’s recent departure from the ministry.</p>
<p>Immigration minister Alex Hawke moves from the outer ministry into cabinet, while Ben Morton goes from being an assistant minister into the outer ministry.</p>
<p>As expected, energy minister Angus Taylor retains the industry part of Porter’s old portfolio.</p>
<p>Taylor was installed as acting minister when Porter was forced to resign after he refused to disclose the names of donors who helped him finance his legal action against the ABC.</p>
<p>Taylor becomes minister for industry, energy and emissions reduction.</p>
<p>However the science part of Porter’s former portfolio is being hived off and given to defence industry minister Melissa Price, who adds science and technology to her other responsibilities.</p>
<p>Morrison said he had asked Taylor “to focus on the critical supply chain initiatives from the recent Quad and the unique role Australia can play based on our national strengths in areas such as critical minerals”, working with resources minister Keith Pitt.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gladys-berejiklian-quits-premiership-amid-icac-inquiry-into-links-with-former-mp-169099">Gladys Berejiklian quits premiership amid ICAC inquiry into links with former MP</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Hawke, who has been a Morrison numbers man and close associate for years, doesn’t change his responsibilities for immigration, citizenship, migration services and multicultural affairs, but fills the cabinet spot that Porter had.</p>
<p>Morrison said that “pleasingly” his elevation brought the immigration portfolio back into cabinet.</p>
<p>“Minister Hawke did an absolutely extraordinary job most recently in the evacuation from Kabul,” Morrison told a news conference.</p>
<p>Morton, who has been assistant minister to Morrison, goes into the ministry as special minister of state, minister for the public service, and minister assisting the prime minister and cabinet. Morrison said this would take in and expand Morton’s current responsibilities.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-the-nationals-and-climate-policy-the-push-for-independent-candidates-and-malcolm-turnbull-169086">VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the Nationals and climate policy, the push for independent candidates, and Malcolm Turnbull</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A former Liberal party director in Western Australia, Morton is a close confidant of Morrison’s.</p>
<p>Tim Wilson, from Victoria, has been promoted from the backbench to assistant minister to the minister for industry, energy and emissions reduction.</p>
<p>Attacking the reshuffle, Anthony Albanese said Morrison had “used it as an opportunity to reward his mates”. He said Hawke was one of the few people in the Liberal party close to Morrison.</p>
<p>Albanese said the industry ministry was a full time job but Morrison had chosen to promote Taylor into that position “on top of his existing responsibilities […] which have proven too much for him”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-to-go-or-not-to-go-morrison-grapples-with-glasgow-169028">Grattan on Friday: To go or not to go — Morrison grapples with Glasgow</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>He said that on the same day Gladys Berejiklian resigned over an ICAC investigation, Taylor – who has been the subject of various controversies – had been promoted.</p>
<p>“This is yet another reminder of how so many people in Mr Morrison’s government are walking, talking reminders of the need for a national anti-corruption commission.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169104/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scott Morrison has promoted two of his closest allies in a reshuffle that follows Christian Porter’s recent departure from the ministry.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1683912021-09-21T08:38:55Z2021-09-21T08:38:55ZPodcast with Michelle Grattan: The Furious French and Porter’s fall<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422323/original/file-20210921-25-1abooos.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=11%2C0%2C3982%2C2000&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> </figcaption></figure><p>As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan now includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.</p>
<p>In this episode, politics + society editor Amanda Dunn and Michelle discuss the intense backlash from France over the Morrison government’s AUKUS security deal with the United States and the United Kingdom, which will see Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines and other sophisticated military technology. As well, they canvass the mounting international pressure on Scott Morrison as he and President Biden talk climate change during the PM’s current US visit. </p>
<p>Michelle and Amanda also discuss Christian Porter’s resignation from the ministry to the backbench after he refused either to find out names of donors who helped fund his defamation action or to give back the money.</p>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/politics-with-michelle-grattan/id703425900?mt=2"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233721/original/file-20180827-75984-1gfuvlr.png" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="268" height="68"></a> <a href="https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uY29tL2F1L3BvZGNhc3RzL3BvbGl0aWNzLXdpdGgtbWljaGVsbGUtZ3JhdHRhbi5yc3M"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233720/original/file-20180827-75978-3mdxcf.png" alt="" width="268" height="68"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-conversation-4/politics-with-michelle-grattan"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233716/original/file-20180827-75981-pdp50i.png" alt="Stitcher" width="300" height="88"></a> <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Politics-with-Michelle-Grattan-p227852/"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233723/original/file-20180827-75984-f0y2gb.png" alt="Listen on TuneIn" width="318" height="125"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://radiopublic.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-WRElBZ"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-152" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233717/original/file-20180827-75990-86y5tg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" alt="Listen on RadioPublic" width="268" height="87"></a> <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/5NkaSQoUERalaLBQAqUOcC"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237984/original/file-20180925-149976-1ks72uy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" width="268" height="82"></a> </p>
<h2>Additional audio</h2>
<p><a href="https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Blue_Dot_Sessions/Azalai/Gaena">Gaena</a>, Blue Dot Sessions, from Free Music Archive.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168391/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan discusses politics with politics + society editor, Amanda DunnMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1682462021-09-19T07:53:45Z2021-09-19T07:53:45ZChristian Porter quits cabinet, refusing to find out who gave him money for legal costs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421978/original/file-20210919-55213-5cvqrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Industry Minister Christian Porter has been forced to resign from cabinet after declining to seek and provide to Scott Morrison the names of the anonymous benefactors who have helped fund his legal costs.</p>
<p>Morrison has appointed energy minister Angus Taylor acting industry minister and sources say he is likely to continue in the dual role.</p>
<p>Porter’s resignation comes as Newspoll shows the government slightly reducing Labor’s two-party lead, from 54-46% to 53-47%. Labor’s primary vote fell 2 points to 38%; the Coalition rose a point to 37%.</p>
<p>Both leaders took hits in approval: Morrison is on a net negative of minus 4, while Anthony Albanese is on a net negative of minus 11. Morrison’s lead as better PM has fallen to 47-35%, from 50-34% three weeks ago – this is the closest since March last year.</p>
<p>In a three-page statement, Porter renewed his attack on the ABC and said a statement provided by the now-deceased woman who accused him of historical rape – which he denies – showed the allegation lacked credibility and was written by someone “very unwell”.</p>
<p>Porter is keeping the funds donated to a “blind trust”, the amount of which is unknown. He also says he will seek to run again in his Western Australian seat of Pearce, which is on a 5.2% margin.</p>
<p>Last week, Porter updated his parliamentary register of interests to reveal a “part contribution” to his legal bills for his (now settled) defamation case against the ABC from “a blind trust known as the Legal Services Trust”. Porter said he did not know the names of donors.</p>
<p>Morrison asked his department to advise whether the arrangement breached ministerial standards.</p>
<p>But Morrison indicated at a news conference on Sunday he and Porter had finalised his future ahead of the advice.</p>
<p>Morrison was clearly anxious to have it settled before his trip to the United States, so it would not be a distraction during what he hopes will be a time of positive news following last week’s announcement of the AUKUS security agreement.</p>
<p>Bad publicity around Porter has been a running sore for the government for much of the year.</p>
<p>The historical rape allegation surfaced publicly in February, when the ABC reported material about it had been sent to several politicians, including the prime minister. Porter was not named but later identified himself, declaring the alleged assault had never happened.</p>
<p>Initially, he hoped to retain his position as attorney-general, but this was politically untenable and he was moved to the industry job in a reshuffle.</p>
<p>With an outcry over the “blind trust” and an election approaching next year, Morrison could not afford another prolonged scandal around Porter. He indicated Porter’s future was in doubt when he said last week he was taking the matter very seriously.</p>
<p>Morrison said on Sunday that in their discussions, Porter had been unable to “practically provide further information because of the nature of those [trust] arrangements”. </p>
<p>That Porter couldn’t provide the information meant he could not conclusively rule out a perceived conflict of interest. </p>
<p>Morrison said Porter was upholding the ministerial standards by resigning.</p>
<p>Porter said in his statement that while he had no right of access to the trust’s funding or conduct, he had asked the trustee for an assurance, which he received, “that none of the contributors were lobbyists or prohibited foreign entities.</p>
<p>"This additional information was provided as part of my Ministerial disclosure,” he said.</p>
<p>He said no doubt the desire of some or many of the donors to remain anonymous was driven by wanting to avoid “trial by mob”.</p>
<p>Porter said he believed that he had provided the information required under the Members’ Register of Interests, and that the additional disclosures he provided under the Ministerial Standards were in accord with its additional requirements. </p>
<p>“However, after discussing the matter with the Prime Minister I accept that any uncertainty on this point provides a very unhelpful distraction for the Government in its work.” </p>
<p>He said to the extent the uncertainty might be resolved by seeking further information about donors’ identities, “this would require me to put pressure on the Trust to provide me with information to which I am not entitled. </p>
<p>"I am not prepared to seek to break the confidentiality of those people who contributed to my legal fees under what are well-known and regular legal structures, including the confidentiality attached to the Trust contribution,” Porter said.</p>
<p>He had explained he “could not assist any process that would ultimately allow people who have done nothing wrong to become targets of the social media mob.”</p>
<p>“Ultimately, I decided that if I have to make a choice between seeking to pressure the Trust to break individuals’ confidentiality in order to remain in Cabinet, or alternatively forego my Cabinet position, there is only one choice I could, in all conscience, make.” </p>
<p>In his renewed attack on the ABC, Porter said that “seemingly with great care and effort – [it] has reported only those parts of the information that it has in its possession which feeds into its narrative of guilt.</p>
<p>"I have recently been provided from a source outside the ABC with a copy of the only signed document that the person who made and subsequently withdrew the complaint ever made.</p>
<p>"Many parts of that 88-page document are such that any reasonable person would conclude that they show an allegation that lacks credibility; was based on repressed memory (which has been completely rejected by courts as unreliable and dangerous); which relied on diaries said to be drafted in 1990/91 but which were actually words composed in 2019; and, was written by someone who was, sadly, very unwell.” </p>
<p>Albanese said Porter needed to answer where the money had come from. He also said Morrison had not sacked Porter – Porter had resigned.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168246/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The industry minister resigned his position after refusing to seek and disclose the names of an anonymous donor to his recent legal costs.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1681112021-09-17T04:23:48Z2021-09-17T04:23:48ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the Anglosphere’s reassertion in the Indo-Pacific<p>University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor and President Professor Paddy Nixon discuss the week in politics.</p>
<p>This week Michelle and Paddy discuss the revelation that anonymous donors covered some of former attorney-general Christian Porter’s legal fees incurred during his defamation case against the ABC. </p>
<p>They also discuss Scott Morrison’s upcoming trip to Washington for the QUAD forum, and what this means for the AUKUS partnership announced this week, which will see Australia acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BXtYDeaz_cE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168111/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan discusses the political week that was with Professor Paddy Nixon.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1681122021-09-16T11:38:03Z2021-09-16T11:38:03ZGrattan on Friday: Porter’s funding from a ‘blind trust’ is an integrity test for Morrison<p>For a very intellectually smart man, Christian Porter often shows extraordinarily bad judgment.</p>
<p>After he was accused of historical rape, which he strongly denied, he believed he could remain as attorney-general, despite that being clearly not viable.</p>
<p>Then he chose to sue the ABC and one of its reporters for defamation, but quickly found this brought reputational risks and huge financial costs. The case was settled before going to trial.</p>
<p>Now Porter has disclosed, in an update this week to the parliamentary register of MPs’ interests, that he has accepted funds from a “blind trust” to help him pay his legal bills.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, there was a general outcry, and Prime Minister Scott Morrison has his department advising whether this arrangement breaches the ministerial standards code. Once more, Porter’s frontbench future is hanging in the balance.</p>
<p>How this plays out is an integrity test for Morrison. Porter needs to leave the ministry or (taking the most lenient view of the situation) immediately have the trust repay all the money to those anonymous benefactors.</p>
<p>Indeed, Porter shouldn’t have to wait to be told by the PM – he should recognise this himself.</p>
<p>Regardless of the departmental advice to Morrison, acceptance of anonymous donations fails the standards of propriety that we should expect from MPs, and certainly from ministers.</p>
<p>Former PM Malcolm Turnbull – who admittedly is no fan of Porter for various reasons – described his action colourfully as “like saying ‘my legal fees were paid by a guy in a mask who dropped off a chaff bag full of cash’”.</p>
<p>Porter argued the government didn’t pay for his court action so these funds are coming to him in a private capacity. But regardless of the fact he was liable for his bills, he is a senior public figure – the debate surrounded his public role and anyway the “private” morphs into the “public”.</p>
<p>There are practical reasons, as well as the matter of principle, why political figures shouldn’t accept money from unknown sources.</p>
<p>While Porter says he doesn’t know the names of the donors, obviously others do. Potential benefactors must have been directed to the trust, which has administrators, with the funds provided to Porter’s lawyers.</p>
<p>Why do the benefactors want to remain anonymous? Do they believe backing Porter will cause them damage or embarrassment? These donors have helped Porter with money, but by staying in the shadows they have actually harmed him, as his present invidious position shows.</p>
<p>One day, their names may emerge publicly. If they don’t, they very likely will be known privately in Liberal circles. That just invites rumours, down the track, that so-and-so might have obtained favours from the Liberals because he or she helped Porter out. Compromising all round.</p>
<p>The rules covering the disclosure of political donations are woefully inadequate. Among much else, we can now see they should extend to cover donations made to politicians in their so-called “private” capacity.</p>
<p>The anonymous largesse to Porter is the latest example of the poor standards in political life that so alienate many of the public, fuelling distrust and cynicism.</p>
<p>At a governmental level, we’ve seen this in the scandals of the community sports grants and commuter car parks schemes before the last election, which were run essentially as vote-buying exercises. Proper process came a distant second to the pursuit of political advantage.</p>
<p>In the sport rorts affair one minister, the Nationals’ Bridget McKenzie, was finally forced to resign. But the reason given was a technicality; there was no admission by Morrison that the scheme – in which his office was intimately involved – had been shamelessly rorted. (All’s ended well for McKenzie – after the Barnaby Joyce leadership coup she was restored to the cabinet.)</p>
<p>Constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey, from the University of Sydney, in a recent speech pointed to the damage this sort of behaviour does.</p>
<p>“The notion abounds amongst politicians that the means are justified by the ends – that it is OK to abuse the rule of law and make unlawful grants to buy an election outcome, because the success of your side in that election is for the overall benefit of the country,” Twomey said.</p>
<p>“Even if that were objectively true in the short term, it is not in the long term. The corrosion of the rule of law and the seeding of future corruption are profoundly worrying. We are being set on a trajectory with horrific ends. Yet our own leaders cannot see beyond the immediate glittering prize of the next election.”</p>
<p>The “whatever it takes” mindset has become all-pervasive. It’s often partnered with “whatever can be hidden”.</p>
<p>The Morrison government is notorious for trying to conceal its workings. At present it is attempting to legislate to get round a legal judgment that found the national cabinet is not a committee of the federal cabinet and therefore it cannot claim cabinet confidentiality. Let’s hope the Senate crossbench stands up against the government’s bid.</p>
<p>A few years ago, both sides of federal politics doubted the need for a national commission against corruption. But after Labor, the Greens and crossbenchers pressed the issue, the Coalition government was reluctantly forced to accept the idea.</p>
<p>While attorney-general, Porter produced draft legislation in late 2020 for an integrity commission. His model was widely criticised; its many holes included that there would be no opportunity for whistle-blowers to directly lodge complaints against politicians and public servants, and investigations involving these figures would not have public hearings.</p>
<p>The government says it will introduce its legislation for the integrity commission before year’s end. We don’t know what changes it is making to the earlier version following the consultation process, but whatever the revised model looks like, it will be a stretch to get legislation through before the election.</p>
<p>An integrity commission is an overdue reform that will help promote greater trust in the political system. Australia Institute polling done in August in four seats – Brisbane (Qld), Braddon (Tas), Bennelong (NSW) and Boothby (SA) – found overwhelming support for setting up a commission. But it’s only part of the answer to the trust deficit.</p>
<p>To promote trust, politicians and governments need to feel proper standards matter – that there is a political cost (short of an integrity commission investigation) to doing the wrong thing, or cutting corners for political ends.</p>
<p>Reinforcing this point requires deterrents to bad behaviour in the form of institutional checks and transparency as well as sanctions.</p>
<p>But there also needs to be positive reinforcement wherever possible – within parties, inside a government, and from voters – of the message that high standards are a central KPI for politicians.</p>
<p>Without that messaging, lack of trust and public cynicism will only grow, poisoning the political system further.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168112/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For a very intellectually smart man, Christian Porter often shows extraordinarily bad judgment, writes Michelle GrattanMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1680112021-09-15T10:42:21Z2021-09-15T10:42:21ZChristian Porter’s ministerial future on the line as Morrison seeks advice on ‘blind trust’<p>Christian Porter’s ministerial future is again on the line, with Scott Morrison seeking advice on whether his receiving money for his legal bills from a “blind trust” breaches the ministerial standards code.</p>
<p>Morrison discussed the arrangement, which has attracted a storm of controversy, with Porter on Wednesday.</p>
<p>On Tuesday Porter updated his parliamentary register of interests to reveal a “part contribution” to his legal bills for his (now settled) defamation case against the ABC from “a blind trust known as the Legal Services Trust”.</p>
<p>“As a potential beneficiary I have no access to information about the conduct and funding of the trust,” he said in the update. </p>
<p>The defamation action followed the ABC reporting a historical rape allegation against an unnamed cabinet minister. Porter, attorney-general at the time, later identified himself as the minister and strongly denied the allegation.</p>
<p>He was subsequently moved from attorney-general to the industry ministry.</p>
<p>A spokesperson for Morrison said late Wednesday: “The Prime Minister is taking this matter seriously and has discussed the matter with the minister today.</p>
<p>"The Prime Minister is seeking advice from his department on any implications for the Ministerial Standards and any actions the minister must take to ensure that he meets the Standards.”</p>
<p>The advice will come from the secretary of the Prime Minister’s department, Phil Gaetjens, and Stephanie Foster, deputy secretary for governance.</p>
<p>If Porter is not meeting the ministerial standard one course would be for him to return the money.</p>
<p>Earlier on Wednesday, former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said he was “staggered that Porter thought he could get away with it and I will be even more staggered if the prime minister allows this to stand.</p>
<p>"It is a shocking affront to transparency,” Turnbull told the ABC.</p>
<p>“Basically what Porter is saying is that it is okay for an Australian cabinet minister, a former attorney-general – not just of Australia, but of Western Australia – to take a large donation, a large gift to himself, without disclosing who the donor was and apparently without him knowing who the donor was either. It is so wrong.”</p>
<p>Turnbull said it was “like saying ‘my legal fees were paid by a guy in a mask who dropped off a chaff bag full of cash’”.</p>
<p>Opposition leader Anthony Albanese ridiculed the proposition that Porter didn’t know the identity of his benefactors.</p>
<p>“The idea that he doesn’t know, that just somehow out there random people are discovering this trust, finding out for themselves where to put the money and depositing the money with no knowledge to him, is, quite frankly, just unbelievable and absurd,” Albanese said.</p>
<p>Albanese said this was “yet another reason why we need a national anti-corruption commission.</p>
<p>"If there was a national anti-corruption commission, it’d be up this like a rat up a drainpipe.”</p>
<p>Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus said the PM seeking advice was “another farcical ‘inquiry’ by Scott Morrison’s right-hand man” which “follows yet another outrageous scandal in Mr Morrison’s government”. </p>
<p>Treasurer Josh Frydenberg defended Porter, telling Sky that he “has disclosed in accordance with the requirements of parliamentarians on their register of interest”.</p>
<p>“The point about Christian Porter’s legal defence is that he did not use taxpayers’ money, and that is very important,” Frydenberg said.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168011/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Christian Porter’s ministerial future is again on the line, with Scott Morrison seeking advice on whether his receiving money for his legal bills from a “blind trust” breaches the ministerial standards code.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1679072021-09-14T10:12:59Z2021-09-14T10:12:59ZPodcast with Michelle Grattan: Christian Porter’s anonymous money pot<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421045/original/file-20210914-21-a5tkxv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=11%2C0%2C3982%2C1994&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> </figcaption></figure><p>As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan now includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.</p>
<p>In this episode, politics + society editor Amanda Dunn and Michelle discuss Christian Porter’s extraordinary “blind trust” – where generous benefactors (assuming there’s more than one) are helping out with his legal bills in his now discontinued ABC defamation case. Porter, it seems, doesn’t know who he should be thanking because the donors are anonymous.</p>
<p>Amanda and Michelle also canvass Gladys Berejiklian’s on-again-off-again media appearances, and Scott Morrison’s trip to the US next week, which is likely to include some interesting exchanges with President Biden on climate policy. </p>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/politics-with-michelle-grattan/id703425900?mt=2"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233721/original/file-20180827-75984-1gfuvlr.png" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="268" height="68"></a> <a href="https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uY29tL2F1L3BvZGNhc3RzL3BvbGl0aWNzLXdpdGgtbWljaGVsbGUtZ3JhdHRhbi5yc3M"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233720/original/file-20180827-75978-3mdxcf.png" alt="" width="268" height="68"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-conversation-4/politics-with-michelle-grattan"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233716/original/file-20180827-75981-pdp50i.png" alt="Stitcher" width="300" height="88"></a> <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Politics-with-Michelle-Grattan-p227852/"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233723/original/file-20180827-75984-f0y2gb.png" alt="Listen on TuneIn" width="318" height="125"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://radiopublic.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-WRElBZ"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-152" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233717/original/file-20180827-75990-86y5tg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" alt="Listen on RadioPublic" width="268" height="87"></a> <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/5NkaSQoUERalaLBQAqUOcC"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237984/original/file-20180925-149976-1ks72uy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" width="268" height="82"></a> </p>
<h2>Additional audio</h2>
<p><a href="https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Blue_Dot_Sessions/Azalai/Gaena">Gaena</a>, Blue Dot Sessions, from Free Music Archive.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/167907/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan discusses politics with politics + society editor, Amanda DunnMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1621602021-06-04T03:46:04Z2021-06-04T03:46:04ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on favourable GDP figures and Melbourne in lockdown<p>Michelle Grattan discusses the week in politics with University of Canberra Associate Professor Caroline Fisher.</p>
<p>This week the pair discuss the government’s coronavirus support payment for Victorians who have lost work as a result of the latest lockdown - and the wider state/federal relations underpinning it.</p>
<p>Also discussed are this week’s GDP figures, Christian Porter’s decision to cease his defamation action against the ABC, and the difficulty the government has had in vaccinating aged care workers and residents.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rdvsKb4yyLg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162160/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Associate Professor Caroline Fisher discuss the week in politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1620872021-06-04T02:29:30Z2021-06-04T02:29:30ZJournalists are not going to stop tweeting. But should media outlets exert more control over their posts?<p>“Not a great week for journalism at the ABC”, News Corp’s Sharri Markson <a href="https://twitter.com/SharriMarkson/status/1399244810863534087">tweeted</a> on Monday, when the week was barely a day old. </p>
<p>It is hard to remember the last time a News Corp columnist declared it was a great week for journalism at the ABC. Markson’s tweet linked to a <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/christian-porter-abc-settle-defamation-case/news-story/6a3bb7aa5c8d1b186ce304ba17936cb6">story</a> in The Australian that quoted former Attorney-General Christian Porter saying his dropping of his defamation claim against the ABC was “a humiliating backdown by the ABC”. </p>
<p>Apart from reporting the settlement, the main basis for the article was that the ABC had warned its staff not to claim victory following Porter’s withdrawal, and to be careful in the way they talked about it. </p>
<p>At such a legally sensitive moment, one might have thought the ABC warning to staff was mere prudence, but it also points to more recurring issues about how media organisations view their journalists’ statements on social media. These issues are likely to become more common, not less. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-porter-decides-its-time-to-fold-em-in-abc-defamation-case-161844">View from The Hill: Porter decides it's time to 'fold em' in ABC defamation case</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The right to tweet?</h2>
<p>Last weekend, the Sydney Morning Herald published a story quoting Liberal Senator and former ABC journalist Sarah Henderson saying the national broadcaster’s social media policy was “<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/woefully-inadequate-abc-cops-stick-for-slack-social-media-policy-20210528-p57vze.html">woefully inadequate</a>”.</p>
<p>There are genuine dilemmas here. Journalists as professionals and employees are subject to certain disciplines. What they tweet can and will affect the way others perceive their work. </p>
<p>Conversely, as citizens, they also have the right to free expression. </p>
<p>In April, The Australian’s economics editor, Adam Creighton, sent this tweet: </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1381076856393306112"}"></div></p>
<p>Does such a <em>cri de coeur</em> affect how readers regard his judgement and capacity to report? Or should he have the right to say how he feels? </p>
<h2>What constitutes crossing the line?</h2>
<p>The ABC is the Australian media organisation that has most earnestly sought to resolve these dilemmas. It has four eminently sensible <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/12/abc-staff-warned-they-could-be-sacked-over-rogue-tweets">guidelines</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>do not mix the professional and the personal in ways likely to bring the ABC into disrepute</p></li>
<li><p>do not undermine your effectiveness at work</p></li>
<li><p>do not imply ABC endorsement of your personal views</p></li>
<li><p>do not disclose confidential information obtained through work.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Henderson pointed to two breaches of these guidelines. One was from an ABC lawyer who called the Coalition government “fascist” and Prime Minister Scott Morrison “an awful human being” on Twitter, and then resigned. Henderson said he should not have been allowed to resign, but should have been fired.</p>
<p>Her other example involved what she called “Laura Tingle’s trolling of a prime minister” last year. This is an inaccurate use of the word trolling, but increasingly politicians (and journalists) seem to equate any criticism of themselves on social media as trolling.</p>
<p>Tingle’s single offending tweet <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/abc-boss-grilled-over-political-correspondent-laura-tingles-smug-prime-minister-tweet/news-story/006f6f9c2e1afc81ab7cd374edef3fce">concluded</a> “we grieve the loss of so many of our fine colleagues to government ideological bastardry. Hope you are feeling smug Scott Morrison”. The tweet was posted late at night after a farewell function for her friend and colleague Philippa McDonald, and it was deleted the next morning. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/latest-84-million-cuts-rip-the-heart-out-of-the-abc-and-our-democracy-141355">Latest $84 million cuts rip the heart out of the ABC, and our democracy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is asking a lot of ABC journalists to feel detached and impartial about government cutbacks to their own organisation that adversely affect the careers of their colleagues. Nevertheless, the ABC has a large investment in Tingle’s public credibility, and the tweet was immediately addressed internally. </p>
<p>ABC Managing Director David Anderson injected an unusual note of common sense when <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/abc-boss-grilled-over-political-correspondent-laura-tingles-smug-prime-minister-tweet/news-story/006f6f9c2e1afc81ab7cd374edef3fce">he was asked</a> whether Tingle was reprimanded during a Senate estimates hearing. He called Tingle’s tweet “an error of judgement” and said “there’s a proportionality that needs to be applied”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1318814773765566471"}"></div></p>
<h2>The dangers of an unduly restrictive approach</h2>
<p>The larger danger is that journalists, especially those at the ABC, will get caught up in public controversies surrounding their own work. While at one level they clearly should have the right to defend themselves, the problem is the temptation to succumb to the cheap point-scoring in which critics often engage, to be dragged down from the professional standards of the original program. </p>
<p>Though recent public controversies have focused on apparent breaches on social media not being sufficiently punished, there are also dangers and potential injustices in an unduly restrictive approach.</p>
<p>The most obvious victim of a journalist being punished for social media activity was SBS football commentator Scott McIntyre, who posted a series of tweets on ANZAC Day in 2015 about the “<a href="https://twitter.com/mcintinhos/status/591869048943706113?lang=en">cultification of an imperialist invasion</a>”. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/conspiracy-theories-on-the-right-cancel-culture-on-the-left-how-political-legitimacy-came-under-threat-in-2020-150844">Conspiracy theories on the right, cancel culture on the left: how political legitimacy came under threat in 2020</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Then-Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull thought they were “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/26/sbs-sports-reporter-scott-mcintyre-sacked-over-direspectful-anzac-tweets">despicable remarks which deserve to be condemned</a>”, and contacted the head of SBS, Michael Ebeid. Ebeid fired McIntyre the same day. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"592565174743244800"}"></div></p>
<p>Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson was then quoted as saying McIntyre’s freedom of speech was not being curtailed, and that his historical claims “will be judged very harshly”.</p>
<p>Whatever the merits of his ANZAC tweets, they had no relationship to his role as a football commentator. Is his reporting on soccer compromised by his views on the ANZAC tradition?</p>
<p>This episode illustrates that “political correctness” and “cancel culture” are found across the political spectrum — and media organisations will continue to grapple with these issues as the social media profiles of their journalists continue to grow.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162087/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rodney Tiffen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Journalists should be permitted to express themselves on social media. As this week illustrates, though, doing so can lead to a dilemma for their employers.Rodney Tiffen, Emeritus Professor, Department of Government and International Relations, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1619112021-06-01T09:51:47Z2021-06-01T09:51:47ZNow Kate’s friend threatens to sue Christian Porter<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/403749/original/file-20210601-19-1svcsb7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C8256%2C5499&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://photos.aap.com.au/">James Gourley/AAP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In walking away from his defamation action against the ABC, cabinet minister Christian Porter has opened a fresh round in the battle over the allegation of historical rape against him by a now-deceased woman, known just as Kate.</p>
<p>Jo Dyer, a friend of Kate – whose claim Porter denies – on Tuesday threatened to sue him, accusing him of impugning “my honesty and integrity”.</p>
<p>There is also now a battle over the settlement concluded between Porter and the ABC.</p>
<p>The federal court has yet to ratify the settlement, which involves expunging from the court record part of the ABC’s defence in the defamation case. But news organisations are seeking to have the material made public.</p>
<p>Justice Jayne Jagot said on Tuesday the issue might not be a matter for the parties. “There has to be a reason for the removal of a document from a court file,” she said. “It’s not done just because a party wants to do it.”</p>
<p>If a document is removed from the court file, there cannot be applications to see it.</p>
<p>ABC journalist Louise Milligan, who Porter also sued in his case against an ABC article reporting the accusation without naming him, tweeted on Monday “We are still absolutely committed to the 27 redacted pages being in the public domain”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1399249813636456451"}"></div></p>
<p>Dyer brought the successful legal action that resulted in Porter’s high profile barrister Sue Chrysanthou being prevented from appearing in the defamation case because of a conflict of interest.</p>
<p>Dyer said in her statement her lawyers had sent a second “concerns notice” to Porter over his “continuing defamatory comments”. “He should be on notice that if I launch legal proceedings, I tend to see them through to their conclusion,” she said.</p>
<p>She alleged two defamations by Porter. She said that on May 12, he implied her legal proceedings were “part of an improper last minute legal strategy to disrupt his now discontinued action”.</p>
<p>“He did this despite knowing the real reason for the court action, and the lengths to which I had gone over the preceding two months to avoid court,” she said.</p>
<p>“Yesterday Mr Porter alleged that, after ‘coaching’ from Ms Milligan, I had destroyed important communications that may have had a bearing on his now discontinued action against Ms Milligan and the ABC.</p>
<p>"This is absurd. As I stated in court under oath, a number of people, of whom Ms Milligan was but one, encouraged me to treat all communications about our dear friend Kate, and the allegations she made against Mr Porter, with the care and respect she and they warranted.</p>
<p>"I endeavoured to do so by both filing and deleting correspondence between me and other individuals as appropriate.</p>
<p>"There was nothing improper, illegal or sinister in my decisions to save or delete certain messages, decisions that were taken well before Mr Porter launched his now discontinued action against Ms Milligan and the ABC.”</p>
<p>Dyer said the allegations Kate made against Porter “remain completely untested. Until they have been investigated, it is untenable for Mr Porter to remain in cabinet.”</p>
<p>Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said an independent inquiry was needed into whether Porter was fit to continue as a cabinet minister. Dreyfus also said the ABC material should be publicly available.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161911/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In walking away from his defamation action against the ABC, cabinet minister Christian Porter has opened a fresh round in the battle over the allegation of historical rape against him by a now-deceased woman.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1618442021-05-31T11:28:17Z2021-05-31T11:28:17ZView from The Hill: Porter decides it’s time to ‘fold em’ in ABC defamation case<p>When he launched his defamation action against the ABC over an article reporting a claim of historical rape against him, Christian Porter boldly indicated he looked forward to going into the witness box to clear his name.</p>
<p>His lawyers said: “Mr Porter will have and will exercise the opportunity to give evidence denying these false allegations on oath”.</p>
<p>In the event, he never got near the witness box.</p>
<p>On Monday Porter settled for an ABC acknowledgement it hadn’t intended to suggest he was guilty, regretted some had read its article that way, and did not contend the accusations against him could be substantiated to a legal standard.</p>
<p>Both the ABC and Porter claimed vindication.</p>
<p>There were no damages and the ABC said the only costs (apart from its own) the ABC would be paying were the “mediation and related costs”.</p>
<p>The action centred on the ABC’s report of a February 2021 letter sent, together with accompanying material, to senior politicians, including Scott Morrison, detailing the allegation by “Kate” – who had committed suicide in 2020 – that Porter, as a 17 year old, had raped her when she was 16. Kate’s friends sent the anonymous letter.</p>
<p>While the ABC article referred only to a senior cabinet minister, Porter later identified himself, and strongly denied the accusation.</p>
<p>The fallout of the controversy that followed led Porter to lose his position as attorney-general and minister for industrial relations. He now holds the industry portfolio.</p>
<p>Porter could never clear his name via the legal system because the woman is dead. Also, she’d told police the day before she died she did not want to proceed with a complaint against him.</p>
<p>Both Porter and Morrison rejected the proposal advanced by many that the matter should go to an independent inquiry.</p>
<p>The action against the ABC seemed to Porter the obvious course. A win would be taken as some sort of clearance.</p>
<p>His decision to settle through mediation is pragmatic if surprising.</p>
<p>Yes, he has extracted some statements of concession from the ABC. But a court victory would have yielded much more.</p>
<p>One might suppose he judged the case increasingly risky. Certainly it was becoming horrendously expensive. Last week he suffered a severe blow when the federal court ruled top lawyer Sue Chrysanthou could not appear for him because of a conflict of interest.</p>
<p>With plenty of legal experience behind him, Porter presumably decided it was better to spin a settlement than play for more and possibly lose everything.</p>
<p>For its part, the ABC did its own spinning.</p>
<p>It was out of the blocks first, <a href="http://about.abc.net.au/statements/abc-statement-on-christian-porter-litigation/">with a statement that Porter had decided to discontinue his defamation action</a> (which was against reporter Louise Milligan as well as the public broadcaster).</p>
<p>The statement said it “regretted” some readers had “misinterpreted” the Milligan article as “an accusation of guilt” against Porter, which it hadn’t intended.</p>
<p>The ABC stood by the importance of its article, which remains online, saying it “reported on matters of significant public interest”. It also stood by Milligan, whom it described as “one of Australia’s foremost and most awarded investigative journalists”.</p>
<p>The editor’s note now posted with the story says: “The ABC did not intend to suggest that Mr Porter had committed the criminal offences alleged.</p>
<p>"The ABC did not contend that the serious accusations could be substantiated to the applicable legal standard – criminal or civil.</p>
<p>"However, both parties accept that some readers misinterpreted the article as an accusation of guilt against Mr Porter. That reading, which was not intended by the ABC, is regretted”.</p>
<p>Speaking outside the court, Porter cast his legal action not only as an exercise in protecting himself, but others more generally.</p>
<p>He condemned the article as “sensationalist, it was one-sided, it was unfair and[…] the sort of reporting that any Australian can be subject to unless people stand up to it.</p>
<p>"So I brought an action to stand up to that sort of reporting.”</p>
<p>“And the ABC said now, they regret the article. That rarely ever happens in those matters.”</p>
<p>“Had they not been challenged, had the ABC not been forced to acknowledge regret at the outcome of the article, had they been not forced to acknowledge publicly that the accusations could not be proved to any civil or criminal standard, then publishing accusations in a deliberately sensationalist way that leads ordinary readers to presume guilt, would have become the new and terrible standard in Australia.”</p>
<p>Porter said he hadn’t thought the ABC would settle. </p>
<p>“I never thought that they would concede that the accusations that were put in the article could never be proven […]</p>
<p>"I did not think, frankly, there was any chance of them making those types of statements to settle this matter,” he said.</p>
<p>“The whole point about bringing in an action like this and getting the ABC to say they regret the reporting is that ordinary readers will think again about the nature of the article.”</p>
<p>Porter’s comments fired up the ABC which <a href="http://about.abc.net.au/statements/abc-response-to-statements-made-today-by-christian-porter/">issued a further statement</a>, denying ever saying it regretted the article and insisting it “has never and still does not accept that the article suggested guilt on the part of Mr Porter”. Nor was the article “senationalist”, it said, among much else.</p>
<p>Porter said if the matter had gone to trial he would have said what he said now – that the alleged rape “simply didn’t happen”.</p>
<p>He also said he was not seeking a return to his old portfolio (now in Michaelia Cash’s hands). Not that he would have got it.</p>
<p>More unexpected, he declared he will definitely stand at the election. There has been much speculation he might not recontest.</p>
<p>It remains to be seen whether the end of the legal action will still the voices of Kate’s friends. But they have achieved part of their objectives.</p>
<p>One of them, Jo Dyer, told the federal court last week Kate had said to her that “given how difficult it would be for her to pursue this case, a measure of success for her endeavours would be if Christian Porter did not become prime minister”. </p>
<p>To the extent that was Kate’s aim, she succeeded. Porter will never return to the list of future contenders for Liberal leadership.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161844/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Christian Porter has settled in his defamation case against the ABC and reporter Louise MilliganMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1579692021-03-26T02:33:24Z2021-03-26T02:33:24ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Scott Morrison’s response to the culture of Parliament House<p>Michelle Grattan discusses the week in politics with University of Canberra Assistant Professor Caroline Fisher.</p>
<p>This week the pair discuss the latest in a growing list of allegations concerning sexual misconduct in Parliament House, and Scott Morrison’s response - a mea culpa, the possibility of quotas for women in the Liberal party, and a botched press conference. Also discussed is the likelihood of a cabinet reshuffle in light of the separate crisis’ involving Christian Porter and Linda Reynolds.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gLCz7y2EOCA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157969/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Assistant Professor Caroline Fisher discuss the week in politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1579062021-03-25T12:20:16Z2021-03-25T12:20:16ZGrattan on Friday: The worst is not over in the crisis tearing at Scott Morrison’s government<p>“Is your leadership safe?” Scott Morrison was asked on the ABC on Thursday. The Prime Minister’s leadership is quite safe, but that the question was put says volumes for how embattled he’s become in a few weeks.</p>
<p>As did some early words in his answer. “What suggestions are you picking up there?”</p>
<p>These days Morrison gets out of bed each morning not knowing what disturbing, sometimes bizarre, story might hit him before he retires for the night.</p>
<p>On Thursday, for instance, Nine went to Morrison with evidence Queensland Liberal backbencher Andrew Laming had bullied two women in his community via Facebook.</p>
<p>Morrison immediately summoned Laming, who was dispatched to the House to retract his comments and make a grovelling apology.</p>
<p>The string of accounts of dreadful behaviour in parliament house, from alleged rape to government staffers engaging in disgusting sexual acts and so-called “orgies”, is making the nation’s seat of democracy sound like the set of an X-rated movie.</p>
<p>Questioned about Network Ten’s graphic report, Morrison said: “This is conduct that is completely mysterious to me, it is not something that I can even conceive of, to be honest.” He wasn’t the only one.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/morrison-says-coalition-staffer-sacked-after-disgusting-allegation-157629">Morrison says Coalition staffer sacked after 'disgusting' allegation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As we’ve seen, the broad message of disrespect and much worse from the revelations has lit a fire among women in the community, as they share their own experiences of assault, harassment and denigration with each other and publicly.</p>
<p>In another context, Morrison famously said “you know, I don’t hold a hose, mate”. But in this crisis engulfing the government, he’s frantically on the tools, announcing inquiries, promising initiatives, advocating quotas, delivering mea culpas, declaring empathy, inviting Brittany Higgins to meet.</p>
<p>Often, however, it’s one step forward, one back. Like the own goal when he turned aggressive, stupidly blurting out (inaccurate) gossip, during the news conference called to project an image of the caring man who listens.</p>
<p>Now he’s forced into a reshuffle, made imperative by the issues surrounding Attorney-General Christian Porter.</p>
<p>Morrison should have dealt with Porter’s situation much earlier, regardless of his going on mental health leave. (It is, incidentally, at least in my memory, very unusual for a minister at the centre of a political storm to take leave.)</p>
<p>In the imminent changes, Porter will be moved out of attorney-general’s and Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, under fire for her handling of Higgins (and on medical leave) will go from defence.</p>
<p>In a fig leaf of solidarity – or a sign of stubbornness – Morrison will keep both in cabinet.</p>
<p>Morrison stuck by Porter initially but it’s clear (a point presumably spelled out in the advice from the Solicitor-General) that he would be riddled with potential conflicts of interest now he’s suing the ABC.</p>
<p>Porter should have stepped down for the good of the government as soon as the allegation of historical rape landed – even though he strongly denies it.</p>
<p>But neither Morrison nor Porter were willing to take that course, arguing it would set a new low bar for forcing ministerial departures.</p>
<p>It’s ironic that Porter’s move to try to clear his name through the courts will be the catalyst for moving him.</p>
<p>Reynolds’ future has been problematic since she entered hospital when she was under political fire and her heart condition became common knowledge.</p>
<p>The reshuffle – in which Michaelia Cash is tipped to become attorney-general and Peter Dutton defence minister – won’t be a magic carpet ride to the other side of this crisis.</p>
<p>Morrison will be helped by having no parliament until the May budget. But allegations and revelations are expected to continue, and striking the right tone and mustering effective responses will remain a struggle for the PM.</p>
<p>On Thursday Higgins struck again, with a letter to Morrison’s chief of staff, John Kunkel, lodging a complaint saying the PM’s media team had backgrounded against her partner.</p>
<p>Morrison, who’d dodged numerous opposition questions about this, later said a “primary and direct source” – apparently someone who had allegedly witnessed what had happened – had now come to Kunkel with “confidential information”. </p>
<p>Morrison said he’d asked Kunkel to commence a process to deal with the complaint. This sounded like a ticking time bomb.</p>
<p>On the positive side, the crisis has generated momentum for action on the Sex Discrimination Commissioner’s report on workplace sexual harassment – on which little had been done – with a full response before the budget.</p>
<p>And Morrison says he’s open to quotas to get more Liberal women into parliament. We’ll see where that gritty debate goes within the party.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-sussan-ley-on-being-a-woman-in-politics-157888">Politics with Michelle Grattan: Sussan Ley on being a woman in politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>With the government taking such a battering, the question is how lasting the damage will be. Specifically, at election time next year will a significant number of women take their anger with them into the polling booth?</p>
<p>Not long ago bold commentators were declaring the election unlosable for Morrison.</p>
<p>Now, bets are hedged. But in politics, fallout is often unpredictable.</p>
<p>For example, shortly before the 2004 election, John Howard’s credibility came into serious question after a whistleblower made damaging claims about what the then prime minister had been told in the 2001 “children overboard” affair. Undeterred, Howard made “trust” central when he announced the election, at which he increased his majority.</p>
<p>Again, when Julia Gillard became PM in June 2010, putting her head-to-head with Tony Abbott, she instantly boosted Labor’s two-party vote, and nearly twice as many women preferred her to Abbott, according to an Age/Nielsen poll. In August, she almost lost the election.</p>
<p>There’s an election saying “the pig can’t be fattened on market day”. But it’s true as well that situations change incredibly fast, especially in today’s hyper cycles.</p>
<p>Equally true, is that people have a hierarchy of considerations when they vote. Many women will be critical of Morrison’s performance in recent weeks. But even if some of that feeling remains strong, where would it rate when they vote compared with, say, their judgment on how the government is performing on the economy?</p>
<p>Oppositions mightn’t win elections but opposition leaders have to attract votes for positive reasons (as did Whitlam, Hawke, Rudd) as well as harvesting people’s discontent with the government. The Coalition looks shambolic, but Anthony Albanese and his party remain unimpressive.</p>
<p>In earlier times, Labor’s national conference would be a significant event that could be used by the leader as a rallying moment.</p>
<p>However next week’s conference, delayed from 2020 by COVID, will be “virtual”, reducing the opportunity for hoopla.</p>
<p>There are no major issues – the policy arguments will be in the weeds. That’s good for the appearance of unity but it also removes the opportunity for the leader to show his command.</p>
<p>The best Albanese can look for is a good public reaction to whatever policy he decides to announce.</p>
<p>Recent weeks have been appalling for Morrison. They do not give us a pointer to an election result probably roughly a year away. They do indicate the contest looks more open than it appeared as 2021 began.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157906/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>“Is your leadership safe?” Scott Morrison was asked on Thursday. The Prime Minister’s leadership is quite safe, but that the question was put says volumes for how embattled he’s become in a few weeks.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1577782021-03-24T07:48:35Z2021-03-24T07:48:35ZScott Morrison leaves Christian Porter’s future in doubt, amid reshuffle speculation<p>Scott Morrison has pointedly left in doubt the future of Christian Porter as Attorney-General, saying he is presently considering advice on Porter’s situation in the context of the “ministerial guidelines”.</p>
<p>Morrison’s statement heightened speculation about a cabinet reshuffle after parliament adjourns this week until the May budget.</p>
<p>Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, currently on medical leave with heart problems but due back to work on April 2, is considered unlikely to stay in her portfolio.</p>
<p>It was learned on Wednesday that on medical advice she would not attend the Raisina Dialogue on April 13 in India.</p>
<p>Morrison’s failure to clarify Porter’s future comes a week before he is due to resume his duties as first law officer, after taking mental health leave in the wake of being accused of a 1988 rape, which he denies.</p>
<p>It was the second time in two days the Prime Minister had indicated he was still mulling advice about Porter. </p>
<p>In parliament on Wednesday, opposition leader Anthony Albanese asked whether Morrison had received advice from the Solicitor-General about Porter’s portfolio responsibilities.</p>
<p>Albanese also noted Morrison had previously confirmed he had sought advice from his department in relation to the Attorney-General and ministerial standards.</p>
<p>“Is the Prime Minister preparing to make his Attorney-General a part-time minister or is he preparing to drop him all together?” Albanese asked.</p>
<p>Morrison said he was considering “that advice with my department secretary, in terms of the application against the ministerial guidelines”.</p>
<p>“When I have concluded that assessment […] I’ll make a determination and I’ll make an announcement at that time.”</p>
<p>The assessment of Porter’s position follows his launch of federal court action against the ABC over its February 26 report that the allegation of rape made by a now deceased woman had been sent in a letter to several parliamentarians including Morrison.</p>
<p>It has already been announced Porter will not deal with anything to do with the federal court or the ABC.</p>
<p>Last week Morrison said he had sought advice from the Solicitor-General about the scope of the Attorney-General’s “portfolio responsibilities in light of the defamation law suit”. </p>
<p>Porter is also Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>Depending on the content of the Solicitor-General’s advice, Morrison has the options of further carve outs of Porter’s Attorney-General responsibilities to avoid conflicts of interest, standing him aside, or removing him altogether from that position.</p>
<p>If he wished to show some continued support for Porter, he could leave him in cabinet holding just the industrial relations job.</p>
<p>Reynolds went on medical leave after coming under attack for her handling of the Brittany Higgins matter. Higgins alleged she was raped by a colleague in the office of Reynolds, then defence industry minister, in 2019.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Tasmanian Liberal senator Eric Abetz on Wednesday was accused by the Speaker of the Tasmanian parliament, Sue Hickey, of denigrating Higgins.</p>
<p>Hickey told the Tasmanian parliament that on March 1 at a citizenship ceremony in Hobart she had casually asked Abetz whether Porter was the minister involved in the historical rape allegation.</p>
<p>She said Abetz had replied it was Porter, “but not to worry, the woman is dead and the law will protect him”.</p>
<p>According to Hickey, Abetz “then said ‘as for that Higgins girl, anybody so disgustingly drunk who would sleep with anybody could have slept with one of our spies and put the security of the nation at risk’”.</p>
<p>Abetz said he categorically denied “Ms Hickey’s defamatory allegations under Parliamentary privilege”.</p>
<p>“As someone who was on the inaugural committee of a women’s shelter and its honorary legal adviser for a decade prior to entering parliament, I reject outright her suggestions and gross mischaracterisation of our discussion,” Abetz said.</p>
<p>“It’s noteworthy Ms Hickey has made her assertions some 3 weeks after she alleges they occurred.</p>
<p>"At no stage has Ms Hickey ever raised concerns with me about any of our conversations.”</p>
<p>Abetz suggested Hickey was motivated by Tasmanian Premier Peter Gutwein telling her on Sunday she would not be endorsed by the Liberal party for the next state election.</p>
<p>After the conversation with Gutwein, Hickey said she had been “effectively sacked” from the Liberal Party. “It appears that the men in dark suits are firmly in control and there is no place for small ‘l’ Liberal women who refuse to kowtow or be subservient to the dominant males.” </p>
<p>In 2018 Hickey won the speakership with Labor and Greens support, against the Liberal candidate.</p>
<p>Abetz said that “on her way out the door she is trying to destroy the party”.</p>
<p>Hickey hit back in another statement in parliament on Wednesday, accusing Abetz of “very grubby politics”. She stood by her account and said, “I have witnesses who can testify that I told them of the discussion at the event and immediately afterwards”.</p>
<p>Late Wednesday the ABC reported that Gutwein had written to Morrison requesting he consider Hickey’s allegations against Abetz.</p>
<p>It said that in a written statement Gutwein said Hickey had told him several weeks ago Abetz had made offensive comments but had not gone to the level of detail she had raised in state parliament.</p>
<p>“As Ms Hickey has outlined her allegations in more detail in the Parliament, this afternoon I have written to the Prime Minister and requested that he consider the matters raised.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157778/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scott Morrison has left in doubt the future of Christian Porter as Attorney-General, saying he is presently considering advice on Porter’s situation in the context of the “ministerial guidelines”.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1575072021-03-19T04:18:37Z2021-03-19T04:18:37ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on March 4 Justice, Christian Porter, and industrial relations<p>University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and Director of the Institute for Governance & Policy Analysis Dr Lain Dare discuss the week in politics.</p>
<p>This week the pair discuss the marches which took place all over the nation, consisting of people demanding justice and equality for women. They also discuss Attorney-General Christian Porter’s defamation case, the vaccine rollout - here and in Papua New Guinea, and the government’s industrial relations bill.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mfBsB1x6EWg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157507/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and Director of the Institute for Governance & Policy Analysis, Dr Lain Dare discuss the week in politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1571722021-03-15T11:43:50Z2021-03-15T11:43:50ZView from The Hill: Christian Porter finds a target, and so does Brittany Higgins<p>Christian Porter on Monday gave notice that he’s determined to stage a fightback, however damaged his ministerial career might appear at the moment.</p>
<p>The Attorney-General launched a defamation action against the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan over the article that initially reported an allegation of historical rape by a cabinet minister had gone to the police.</p>
<p>Porter on Monday also put a date on his return to work – March 31. That means he doesn’t have to face parliament until the budget session, but indicates he has no intention of quitting the frontbench, which seemed one option for him after this crisis broke.</p>
<p>Porter strongly denies the rape accusation but previously asked, rhetorically: how could he disprove something that didn’t happen? Now he’s turning the line on its head – he’s challenging the ABC to run a defence of truth, proving it did happen.</p>
<p>Whatever the outcome, this is shaping as a case for the history books, with a star cast – the nation’s first law officer, Australia’s public broadcaster, lawyers from the cream of the profession.</p>
<p>The defamation action may ease pressure on Scott Morrison over the calls for an independent inquiry to determine whether Porter is a fit and proper person for his position. The case, under civil law, will be its own sort of inquiry.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-defamation-suits-in-australia-are-so-ubiquitous-and-difficult-to-defend-for-media-organisations-157143">Why defamation suits in Australia are so ubiquitous — and difficult to defend for media organisations</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Porter, a Crown prosecutor in a former life, is making a calculated tactical decision that attack is the best form of defence.</p>
<p>For the ABC, there’ll be wider implications – and more at stake – than just the case itself. The broadcaster is a punching bag for its critics in the Coalition and the right wing commentators, who attack it as politically biased. Milligan was at the centre of reporting allegations against Cardinal George Pell, whose convictions were quashed by the High Court.</p>
<p>The word from Morrison’s office has been he’s wanted Porter to stay, rather than step down to clear away a political problem.</p>
<p>Morrison will hope, with the legal action afoot, the political heat around Porter will cool somewhat.</p>
<p>We’ll soon see whether this is heroically optimistic. But what’s absolutely clear is that the two separate and very different rape allegations dominating federal politics have unleashed a push by women to be heard that had been waiting to erupt.</p>
<p>The March4Justice protests show the organised anger of women is a potent force – what’s yet to be tested is its longer term strength. And Morrison’s reaction indicates he’s ill-equipped to deal with a political challenge that has become a social bushfire.</p>
<p>Monday’s marches were nationwide but in Canberra the day belonged to Brittany Higgins, the young former Liberal staffer whose claim she was raped by a colleague in Linda Reynolds’ ministerial office was a catalyst for forcing action to deal with parliament house’s dark side.</p>
<p>Higgins put Morrison directly in her sights in an emotional but controlled speech, accusing him of playing a double game.</p>
<p>“I watched as the Prime Minister of Australia publicly apologised to me through the media, while privately his team actively discredited and undermined my love ones,” she told the thousands of assembled women.</p>
<p>And she took aim more generally, declaring the women were there because “we fundamentally recognise the system is broken, the glass ceiling is still in place, and there are significant failings in the power structures within our institutions. We are here because it is unfathomable that we are still having to fight this same stale, tired fight.”</p>
<p>To an extraordinary extent, and in a testament to the importance of individuals at particular times, Higgins and Porter’s deceased accuser have become the conduits for women’s grievances – grievances extending far beyond the alleged circumstances of those two women.</p>
<p>Morrison cast his response to March4Justice in what might be characterised as narrowly conventional terms. In a statement to parliament, he spoke about what had been, and was being, done to tackle the scourge of violence against women. He also went to the issues in parliament house.</p>
<p>But he has not shown himself able to relate effectively to the emotional intensity that has gripped many women as they seek to raise their voice. It is, one suspects, beyond his ken.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-you-afraid-of-scomo-australian-women-are-angry-and-the-morrison-government-needs-to-listen-157134">'What are you afraid of ScoMo?': Australian women are angry — and the Morrison government needs to listen</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Morrison’s refusal to meet the women on their own ground brought to mind John Howard’s unwillingness to join the 2000 march for reconciliation across Sydney Harbour Bridge. He misjudged in not sending his Minister for Women, Marise Payne, to mingle with the marchers. </p>
<p>The PM had offered to see a delegation in his office. But the organisers played the power game, and declined.</p>
<p>Anthony Albanese understood better than Morrison. “We had, today, women gather around Australia with a few very clear and unambiguous messages – hear us roar,” he told parliament.</p>
<p>But earlier the Labor leader struggled when peppered by reporters with questions about a private Facebook group (revealed by Sam Maiden on news.com) where Labor present and former staff have listed allegations of sexual misconduct by male staffers and MPs.</p>
<p>Albanese could only stress the party had a process to deal with complaints, and say women should come forward. It was difficult to look into anonymous suggestions, he said.</p>
<p>It’s easy to say the last few weeks mark some sort of political “moment” – measured perhaps by the Coalition’s knock in Newspoll, which saw Labor move ahead on the two-party vote.</p>
<p>It’s much harder to predict where that “moment” will lead in electoral terms. Right now, Morrison can’t know either. But Monday must have told him the government’s perennial “women problem” has suddenly become broader, deeper and more dangerous.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-labor-surges-to-52-48-newspoll-lead-as-womens-voices-set-to-roar-across-the-country-157124">View from The Hill: Labor surges to 52-48% Newspoll lead, as women's voices set to roar across the country</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157172/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Christian Porter on Monday gave notice that he’s determined to stage a fightback, however damaged his ministerial career might appear at the moment.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1571432021-03-15T08:34:19Z2021-03-15T08:34:19ZWhy defamation suits in Australia are so ubiquitous — and difficult to defend for media organisations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389478/original/file-20210315-14-1omijtj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=101%2C101%2C4906%2C2806&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Richard Wainwright/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Attorney-General Christian Porter is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/christian-porter-launches-defamation-action-against-the-abc-20210315-p57arg.html">suing the ABC for defamation</a> and claiming aggravated damages. </p>
<p>Porter is claiming that <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-26/pm-senators-afp-told-historical-rape-allegation-cabinet-minister/13197248">an article published last month</a> included false allegations against him in relation to a historical rape. A statement from his lawyer says although Porter was not named, the article made allegations against a senior cabinet minister “and the attorney-general was easily identifiable to many Australians”.</p>
<p>So, how does defamation law work, what is its impact on the media, and why has Australia been labelled <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/opinion/australia-defamation-laws.html">the defamation capital of the world</a>?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1371245531083640833"}"></div></p>
<h2>What is considered defamatory?</h2>
<p>Defamation can be defined as a false statement about a person to their discredit. The legal action has three elements for the complainant to prove: publication, identification, and defamatory meaning. Significantly, the falseness of the published material is presumed.</p>
<p>A statement has defamatory meaning if it would lead an ordinary, reasonable reader to think less of the complainant, or if it would cause the complainant to be shunned or subjected to more than trivial ridicule.</p>
<p>Publication is broadly defined, including any communication to someone other than the complainant, whether written or spoken.</p>
<p>And identification requires reference to the complainant, which could be indirect if the ordinary, reasonable reader is able to read between the lines — as Porter is claiming in his case.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-despite-his-denial-christian-porter-will-struggle-with-the-caesars-wife-test-156412">View from The Hill: Despite his denial, Christian Porter will struggle with the 'Caesar's wife' test</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A news organisation might carefully avoid naming a person, as the ABC did, but it could still be liable if a reader would have known who that person was. Porter was named in social media chatter around the ABC’s story - whether that sort of speculation constitutes identification is questionable, but not inconceivable.</p>
<p>Where a complainant’s identity is confirmed after publication — as Porter’s was when he <a href="https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/attorney-general-christian-porter-gives-press-conference-amid-rape-allegations-ng-b881811087z">fronted the media</a> two weeks ago — identification becomes straightforward for later downloads of the story. Each download is treated as a separate potential defamation under the law. At the time of writing, the ABC’s report was still on its site.</p>
<p>The elements of defamation are encapsulated in the <a href="https://blogs.umb.edu/quoteunquote/2012/09/25/even-if-it-looks-sounds-walks-and-quacks-like-an-orwell-quote-it-still-might-not-be-an-orwell-quote/#:%7E:text=%E2%80%9CJournalism%20is%20printing%20what%20someone,everything%20else%20is%20public%20relations.%E2%80%9D&text=%E2%80%9CNews%20is%20something%20somebody%20doesn,%3B%20all%20else%20is%20advertising.%E2%80%9D">expression</a> cherished by news editors:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This reflects the reality that the media is exposed to defamation risk daily — and the risk is serious.</p>
<p>A complainant can sue any person involved with the story’s production, such as journalist Louise Milligan in the ABC’s case. Add the fact the complainant doesn’t need to prove any harm was actually done — and aggravated damages awards are uncapped — and it’s easy to see why defamation inspires fear among media organisations.</p>
<h2>What defences can media organisations use?</h2>
<p>The defences to defamation are notoriously difficult to establish.</p>
<p>While the complainant need not prove the material is false, the defendant can escape liability by showing that it’s true. In the Porter case, this means the ABC would need to prove matters from more than 30 years ago raised in a letter by a woman who is now deceased.</p>
<p>Moreover, the defendant must prove the truth of the “defamatory stings” — the discrediting imputations that an ordinary, reasonable reader would take from the published material, regardless of whether those were the intended meanings. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/social-media-and-defamation-law-pose-threats-to-free-speech-and-its-time-for-reform-64864">Social media and defamation law pose threats to free speech, and it's time for reform</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Even proving the truth of ordinary, factual reporting can be challenging in cases where journalists’ sources, such as whistleblowers, have legitimate reasons to preserve their anonymity.</p>
<p>These difficulties might be ameliorated if Australia had a “reportage” defence, like that of the United Kingdom. This defence excuses the media for reporting defamatory statements by third parties on matters of public interest, provided the media has merely reported the statement without adopting it.</p>
<p>Australia does have a “<a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/da200599/s30.html">reasonable publication</a>” defence, but its requirements have proven near-impossible for media organisations to satisfy in court.</p>
<p>For example, the defence is probably a non-starter in cases where a news organisation reports unproven criminal allegations and the person of interest, being unnamed, is given no right of reply in the story.</p>
<h2>Reforming defamation</h2>
<p>Changes to Australia’s defamation law are in the works. Some will help potential defendants, such as a new threshold of serious harm and tighter time limits for bringing actions. </p>
<p>Other reforms will require a wait-and-see approach, like the new public interest defence, which aims to rebalance defamation law in favour of public interest reporting but retains elements of the old reasonable publication defence.</p>
<p>This leaves room for courts to maintain a tough stance on what is regarded as “reasonable” media conduct when it comes to defamation. That stance recently saw NSW courts hold three Australian media companies <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-01/media-giants-lose-key-appeal-in-dylan-voller-defamation-case/12306792">liable for comments</a> that were posted on their Facebook pages about a former youth detention detainee.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-outdated-defamation-laws-are-changing-but-theres-no-revolution-yet-143532">Australia's 'outdated' defamation laws are changing - but there's no 'revolution' yet</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>More meaningful reform might have established stronger public interest and reportage defences, or required complainants to prove that the material published about them was false - or even that the publisher knew it to be false but published it anyway.</p>
<p>Defamation cases involving public figures in the United States require proof that the publisher knew the material to be false, which is why US politicians almost never sue for defamation.</p>
<p>In Australia, by contrast, politicians do sue – and successfully. They often opt for the Federal Court where, compared with the state courts, they are likely to have their matter heard by a judge alone, rather than having to convince a jury of the merits of their case.</p>
<p>Citizens and institutions seeking to hold those in power to account are too often being silenced by our current defamation laws. In a strong democracy like Australia, we can — and must — do better.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157143/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brendan Clift receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.</span></em></p>Porter claims even though he wasn’t named in the ABC article, he was easily identifiable to many Australians. For the ABC, the defences to defamation are notoriously difficult to establish.Brendan Clift, Graduate researcher, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1571402021-03-15T01:39:48Z2021-03-15T01:39:48ZChristian Porter sues ABC and reporter Louise Milligan for defamation<p>Attorney-General Christian Porter has commenced defamation proceedings in the Federal Court against the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan.</p>
<p>He is suing over an article the ABC published on Friday, February 26, which he says made false allegations against him in relation to a person he met when he was a teenager. </p>
<p>The story reported police had been notified of a letter sent to Scott Morrison detailing an alleged historical rape by a federal cabinet minister.</p>
<p>A statement from Porter’s lawyer Rebekah Giles says although Porter was not named, the article made allegations against a senior cabinet minister “and the Attorney-General was easily identifiable to many Australians”.</p>
<p>The lawyer’s statement, issued on Monday, says that in the last few weeks Porter “has been subjected to trial by media without regard to the presumption of innocence or the rules of evidence and without any proper disclosure of the material said to support the untrue allegations”.</p>
<p>“The trial by media should now end with the commencement of these proceedings,” it says.</p>
<p>“The claims made by the ABC and Ms Milligan will be determined in Court in a procedurally fair process.”</p>
<p>The statement says Porter will give evidence “denying these false allegations on oath.”</p>
<p>The ABC and Milligan have damaged Porter’s reputation by publishing the allegations, the statement says.</p>
<p>“This Court process will allow them to present any relevant evidence and make submissions they believe justifies their conduct in damaging Mr Porter’s reputation.”</p>
<p>The statement points out that under the Defamation Act, it is open to the ABC and Milligan to plead truth in their defence - “and prove the allegations to the lower civil standard”.</p>
<p>Porter’s lawyers include two leading barristers, Sue Chrysanthou SC, and Bret Walker SC, who appeared for Geoffrey Rush when he successfully sued the Daily Telegraph for defamation. Walker also acted for Cardinal George Pell, whose child sex abuse convictions were overturned in an appeal before the High Court.</p>
<p>A statement of claim filed in the proceedings says the article carried the defamatory imputation that Porter brutally raped a 16-year-old girl in 1988. </p>
<p>It says the ABC and Milligan published the article without any attempt to give Porter an opportunity to respond. </p>
<p>It accuses them of selecting portions of the material in order to make the allegations against Porter appear as credible as possible when other portions demonstrated the allegations were not credible. </p>
<p>“Milligan engaged in a campaign against Porter in order to harm his reputation and have him removed as Attorney-General,” the statement says. </p>
<p>The ABC said it would defend the action.</p>
<p>Porter’s office announced late Monday that he will return to work on March 31. He is currently on mental health leave. His return date means he will miss all the current parliamentary sitting and will not be back in the House of Representatives until the budget session in May.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157140/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Attorney-General Christian Porter has commenced defamation proceedings in the Federal Court against the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.