The last thing Porter wants

I’ve never been in anything like Attorney General Christian Porter’s position, but I suspect if I was innocent of any allegations as he claims he is, then I’d demand an independent inquiry to demonstrate that innocence.

According to their public statements, neither Morrison nor Porter have read the 31 page ‘dossier’. I find that impossible to believe in Morrison’s case, and I suspect he has read it, or at least had one of his minions read it to provide him with dot points. I think the reason he is saying he hasn’t read it is to allow himself to add one more excuse to his quiver of non-answers. In addition to ‘I do not agree with the premise of your question’, I do not comment on gossip’, and ‘that’s a Canberra bubble question’. Now we have ‘I haven’t read it’.1

Many of the members of the government have wheeled out the ‘rule of law’ mantra in response to the allegations, along with ‘innocent until proven guilty’. The former is simply a verbal distraction for those journalists who work for Murdoch or are gullible enough to believe it applies. In fact, the ‘rule of law’ is not about protecting your mates, it is about treating everyone equally before the law regardless of their position. That is something that went west in Australia years ago, and has been made worse by the current government. The presumption of innocence is something that only seems to apply when the government wants it to apply. The whole Robodebt debacle was predicated on the recipients of the demands being guilty until they could prove their innocence2.

Ben Saul, Challis Chair of International Law at Sydney University has opined that it is not only through criminal processes that such an alleged rape can be investigated. This puts the lie to another common thread in the government’s rhetoric, that the police have dealt with the allegations. He said: “It is normal that the same conduct of a person may be subject to different legal processes for different purposes – criminal, civil, employment, disciplinary, human rights, ombudsperson, coronial etc.”, and: “The standards of proof may differ between processes for different purposes. Non-criminal processes may not depend on the existence of any criminal process, let alone a conviction on evidence beyond reasonable doubt, or the views of police.”3

Saul added that the government “is not legally required to establish an ad hoc inquiry into the matter. It is a political question of what our democracy expects of the character and fitness of any politician, particularly a cabinet minister and first law officer” and “whether we trust the Prime Minister alone to judge it when he has a clear partisan political conflict of interest, the matter is so serious, and larger issues of violence against women are of such public concern”.3

I suspect the reason Morrison and Porter do not want an inquiry is that Porter will be fully informed of the evidence, something he and Morrison have studiously avoided so far. That evidence includes that in the 31 pages written by the deceased, and her friends and family. Any properly constituted inquiry will be able to “forensically test his version of events” and to consider evidence from witnesses3. If Porter is so certain that nothing happened, then surely, he would welcome an inquiry. It seems to my untrained eye there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from Porter’s and Morrison’s rejection of an inquiry. People like Morrison, Porter and their ilk only scream about the rule of law when they don’t want to be subject to it.

Sources

  1. https://blotreport.com/2021/03/03/morrison-porter-and-endemic-lying/
  2. https://theconversation.com/robodebt-was-a-policy-fiasco-with-a-human-cost-we-have-yet-to-fully-appreciate-150169
  3. https://twitter.com/profbensaul/status/1367382998727847940

10 Comments

  • Tina says:

    Actually think it is not helping Porter’s credibility that he talks about the rule of law in such a way and coming from one of the “highest” positioned in law. Surely he doesn’t want to give the idea he is incompetent!! This article is worth a read.
    https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2021/03/06/christian-porter-rule-of-law/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Saturday%20News%20-%2020210306

    • admin says:

      Tina,
      Yep. I read it this morning. I am no lawyer (which is obvious), but even I knew what the rule of law was, and that it was not at all what the desperate government muppets were saying. Geoffrey Watson is on the money.

  • Jon says:

    Ethicist Simon Longstaff nailed it in his piece in the SMH yesterday.

    The ethical foundations of liberal democratic politics are eroding in Australia
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/the-ethical-foundations-of-liberal-democratic-politics-are-eroding-in-australia-20210302-p5777l.html

    • admin says:

      Jon,
      Hadn’t seen that, so I just read it. I think part of the reason that the NSW politicians don’t want ‘dignity, courtesy and respect’ in their code is because they have largely been taken over by the religious who want to be able to continue their discrimination against others, and dignity, courtesy and respect do not sit within that framework.

  • Mark Dougall says:

    What gets me about this is the idea that Morrison, Porter and the rest are trying to sell that if the police say they cannot take a case to court then no crime was committed. They also are trying to con us into believing that the only people who investigate things which are crimes, or potential crimes, are the police. Neither of these things are true. Crimes are uncovered, and significant investigations undertaken, by a range of people including Royal Commissioners, auditors, coroners, health professionals, sporting clubs and even simply private investigators. All these investigations are lawful. Often the crimes they discover are historical and in many cases there is insufficient evidence for a court prosecution. That does not prohibit a coroner, or a Royal Commissioner, from indicating who a likely perpetrator was, and it certainly does not prohibit the investigators from making recommendations for action by relevant authorities such as employers. We know that there are huge numbers of rapes and sexual assaults that have been reported but have not made it to court. We know that this is because of the factors like time since the event, lack of other witnesses (these are mostly crimes behind closed doors) and a range of issues that mean that meeting the standards required to achieve a conviction are very difficult. That does not mean the crime did not happen. To pretend otherwise is an insult to all those people who have been attacked. It is simply a disgusting position to take.

    • admin says:

      Mark,
      Yep. This ‘rule of law’ stuff Morrison and co are waving about is simply to make themselves feel better and to suck in the gullible punters.

  • Arthur Baker says:

    Just the latest instalment of an ongoing theme from the political party who gave you Julian Assange, David Hicks, the Bali Nine, Mamdouh Habib, and perhaps most infamously, Mohammed Haneef. All adjudged, by the Liberals, to be guilty until proven innocent. And in some cases “offered” (bwa ha ha) “consular assistance” which never materialised and in truth was never going to.

    The latter, Mohammed Haneef, was subjected to no fewer than FOUR breaches of well-established principles of English law, some dating back about eight centuries to Magna Carta. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty; the principle of sub judice; Habeas Corpus; and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers.

    Haneef later took our government to court over their mistreatment of him, and good on him for doing that, despite the fact that we, the long-suffering taxpayers of Australia, had to stump up for a damages bill whose magnitude was suppressed but is reputed to exceed a million smackers. The amount should have been deducted from the over-generous parliamentary pensions of the ministers who perpetrated the Haneef outrage.

    And to think they won the last Australian general election on the smug slogan “The Bill you can’t afford”. Good grief.

    • admin says:

      Arthur,
      These days, the ‘rule of law’ is mostly used by the powerful against the powerless, the absolute antithesis of its real meaning.

  • Warren says:

    I’m surprised that Simon Longstaff’s piece even appeared in the SMH?

    • admin says:

      Warren,
      I think journalists, particularly some of the female, non-Murdoch variety, who are some of the best in the business, are starting to realise that this government is corrupt and misogynist, and the sooner that are gone, the better. Hopefully some of the boys will catch up.

Leave a Reply to Tina Cancel Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Bitnami