Red Rag

Hooray! The third series of The League of Gentlemen (not to be confused *shudder*) is on ABC, albeit very late at night. If you haven’t seen it, check out some video clips and prepare to be disturbed…

Fuck off, cuntrash. Sorry about the language, but not the sentiment. Where do you get off telling Gianna she’s going to be a bad mother? If you actually read her blog instead of cherrypicking it (I’ll go out on a limb and suggest you found it via Tim Blair) to make cheap personal attacks, you’d know she’ll make a fantastic mother — with or without a husband. And you’d also know she has a job, she refers to it regularly. But we can’t let the facts get in the way of a “single mums are all good-for-nothing dole-bludgers” rant, can we? I’m glad your unit is dead, if it means you won’t be fathering anything else in future. (Congrats, Gianna. All the best.)

Uncle thinks Abbott beat O’Brien on the 7.30 Report last night. Yeah, right. Of course the ABC has a left-wing bias — if you’re looking at it through Uncle’s lens of impartiality.

(This post intentionally left blank.)

There’s an aspect to the slush fund fiasco that I missed until this afternoon:

Yesterday, Mr Sharples also claimed that another One Nation defector, its former treasurer Ted Briggs, had delivered two CDs concerning the party’s finances and membership to the Sydney office of the Prime Minister, John Howard.

Mr Sharples said Mr Briggs, who died in November 1998, had told him of flying to Melbourne and paying “at least $10,000″ for copies of stolen computer records obtained from One Nation’s headquarters in the Corso, Manly.

“Ted said he paid the money, flew to Sydney and handed the CDs to a senior administrator at Howard’s office,” Mr Sharples said. “He then flew to Brisbane and dropped off some other copies at [National Party senator] Ron Boswell’s office.”

If a link can be proven between the theft of One Nation records and Howard’s office, that would be a major scandal. In fact, it would have enough parallels to a certain famous incident to legitimagely attract the now bandied-about “gate” suffix… although it would still be lame.

There’s an interesting article on the tort of maintenance (see my earlier post, and Ken Parish’s) in today’s Financial Review, but alas it’s for subscribers only. I’ll give you the gist:

No resort to medieval tort from prison cell
Point of law

Chris Merritt

Pauline Hanson may yet get revenge on Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott by suing hum under the ancient tort of maintenance — but she would have to wait until she’s released to do so.

[…] On Tuesday, Mr Abbott told parliament that the entire purpose of a trust fund known as Australians for Honest Politics “was to fund legal actions against One Nation”.

After examining Mr Abbott’s statements, a leading Brisbane barrister, who declined to be named, said that — judged only on what had been said in parliament — a prima facie case of maintenance could be made out against Mr Abbott.

Other legal sources pointed out that unless special arrangements were made with Queensland authorities, Hanson and colleague David Ettridge would be unable to sue Mr Abbott until they had been released from prison.

If their actions were successful, they would be entitled to damages equal to the cost of defending civil litigation that had been supported by Mr Abbott’s secret fund.

[…] Legal sources said the objectives of the trust fund would have central importance in any litigation, as it would be necessary to determine whether it was established for a purpose unlawful in Queensland.

So there you go. This issue will probably not go anywhere fast, and I reckon Pauline Hanson would be willing to sue Abbott in order to kickstart her political career upon release. After all, victim politics is what One Nation is all about.

Gummo Trotsky on fisking Andrew Bolt: “It was fun, in a tedious sort of way.”

Graham again proves his ability to squeeze the essence of a major issue into a few words: “Apparently the slush fund he set up had the name ‘Australians for Honest Politics’. Tony Abbott. Honest Politics. Heh. Empty the glass.” While I was away, he squeezed the history of blogging into this post. Every warblogger should read it.

Since my previous post, Tony Abbott has continued to make a mockery of his slush fund’s name: “Australians for Honest Politics”. So now I get to sink the boot in. His effort on the 7.30 Report would have been hilarious if it wasn’t so serious. The transcript can’t capture the expression on Abbott’s face as he underwent various definitional contortions in order to evade Kerry O’Brien’s excellent questions; nonetheless, it makes entertaining reading.

The interview started with some background about the nature of the fund, a replay of the 1998 Tony Jones question that Abbott first lied in response to, and the establishment of a chronology. Abbott’s defence to the accusation of dishonesty is that the slush fund hadn’t been established at the time of the 1998 interview.

I’ll pick up where it began to get really interesting.

Kerry O’Brien: Well, Terry Sharples says you had a meeting with him and others on July 7, ‘98, where you offered him $20,000 to cover his legal costs.

Tony Abbott: Well, see, I dispute that and I always have.

KO’B: You did have the meeting though, didn’t you, on July 7?

TA: Yes, so what?

Big deal.

KO’B: And the question of costs didn’t come up?

TA: Look, the question of how much it would cost, what would be the possible downside of a court case — sure, that came up.

KO’B: So you did talk about costs with him and you talked about meeting the costs?

TA: Yes, but there’s a difference between offering to pay someone money — offering to pay Terry Sharples money — and supporting a legal case.

This is a clumsy dodge. Abbott is trying to distinguish between “offering to pay Terry Sharples money” and “supporting a legal case” by offering to pay Terry Sharples money.

However, the important thing for O’Brien at this point was to establish a link between Abbott’s initial promises and the subsequent establishment of the slush fund:

KO’B: Where were you going to get the money?

TA: Well, I’m not going to tell you that, Kerry.

KO’B: When you offered him the money where were you going to get it from?

TA: Kerry, I am not going to tell you that.

KO’B: So you didn’t have a fund in mind?

TA: No, I didn’t.

KO’B: You didn’t have a fund in train?

TA: No, I didn’t at that stage.

At this point, Abbott returns to the intial dodge, trying to differentiate between paying Terry Sharples and paying Terry Sharples for his legal costs. This time, O’Brien won’t let it go:

KO’B: But you were confident that you would be able to find money for him, presumably not out of your own pocket?

TA: Not for him not for him — but for an action, for a legal action.

KO’B: Let’s not split hairs.

Let’s not split hairs.

TA: Well, let’s not.

KO’B: It was to fund his action?

TA: Yes, and there is a world of difference between funding an action or, at least, getting pro bono lawyers to act without charge and having someone who might stand a costs order in the contingency that a costs order might be made and offering him money.

I did not offer him money.

This is where Abbott appeared to go off the rails. He simply can’t explain how promising that Sharples will not be out of pocket, that his costs will be covered, does not constitute offering him money. It is an example of semantic gymnastics at its most futile:

KO’B: And then you offered to underwrite effectively his costs in a legal action.

That is money.

Costs is money, isn’t it?

TA: Well, I said that he would not be out of pocket.

KO’B: Is costs money?

TA: Well —

KO’B: When it really gets down to it, costs is money, isn’t it?

TA: What I said was that he would not be out of pocket.

KO’B: He wouldn’t be out of pocket?

TA: That’s correct.

KO’B: With money?

Money?

Cash?

Money?

TA: Well, I said he wouldn’t be out of pocket.

KO’B: And on July 11 you met him again and you handwrote a guarantee, didn’t you?

TA: I had sent him a note, but this is not new news, Kerry.

KO’B: No, but then on July 31 — TA: All of this was on the record years ago.

KO’B: But on July 31, you told Tony Jones — you gave him an “absolutely not” denial about any kind of funds going to Terry Sharples.

TA: I said that I had not offered him money and I stand by that.

KO’B: You offered him costs?

TA: Well, I said that he wouldn’t be out of pocket.

KO’B: That’s money!

TA: Oh, come on, Kerry.

KO’B: Tony Abbott, that is money.

Let me hear it from your lips — that is money!

TA: Let’s move on.

I did not offer to pay Terry Sharples any money.

KO’B: You offered to cover his costs.

TA: But I did not offer to pay Terry Sharples any money.

KO’B: I think the audience understands that costs is money, so we’ll move on.

This is perhaps the most disingenuous definitional wriggling I’ve seen from a politician in my life. Abbott is a fool if he thinks anyone will buy that distinction, and his wriggling in the chair certainly made it clear that he didn’t buy it himself.

Unfortunately, O’Brien dropped the ball at that point. The damage done, and Abbott shown to be the slippery liar that he is, the rest of the interview descends into farce. O’Brien gets caught up on a couple of questions that are irrelevant. First, he harps on about Abbott’s self-described “flippant remark” about misleading the ABC. Deaf Neddy could tell you that the comment was flippant, but O’Brien can’t let it go. One suspects that if a different outlet had been mentioned it wouldn’t have been raised at all.

Second, he pursues the line that Abbott is somehow responsible for Hanson’s jail term. As Abbott rightly points out, she was prosecuted by the Queensland DPP, convicted by a representative Queensland jury, and sentenced by a Queensland judge. His actions may have turned up evidence, but he did not drive the case against her. This is an unfortunate example of the 7.30 Report stooping to populism and attempting to ride the wave of public sentiment against the Hanson jail term.

Thankfully, the Australian Electoral Commission has announced that it is re-examining its earlier decision that the donors to the slush fund could remain anonymous. It says it has new information that challenges its previous belief that the fund was not party political, but hasn’t said what that information is. [I can’t find an online source, but it was on the ABC News.] I have a(n admittedly unfounded) hunch that either Liberal politicians contributed, or the Liberal Party received money from the trust. This is a scandal that will only keep growing.

I can’t access any of the Ubersportingpundit blogs from home. Alas, no Troppo Armadillo or Hot Buttered Death for me… No idea what’s causing it, the browser just times out.

A couple of days ago, John Quiggin posted,

Our legal system behaves in strange ways. Pauline Hanson was jailed for three years for a highly technical breach of the electoral registration rules. But apparently it’s OK for one political party to foment and fund legal disputes within another.

I disagree with him on both counts. On Hanson’s sentence, I think she deserved to have the book thrown at her. I share the sentiments of Quiggin’s commenter, Geoff:

Criminal fraud to obtain $500,000, and some people think that the sentence is “too harsh”, or that “community service” is somehow more appropriate.

A quick google reveals that there are many sentences that are proportionate to Hanson’s, for similar offenses… Imagine the outrage if the $120,000 dole cheat got away with community service!

I also agree with Mark Latham when he said, “Well Mrs Hanson spent the last New South Wales election campaign campaigning for tougher penalties — and now she’s got one. I think it’s important to recognise that people who break the law in a serious way pay a serious penalty.”

My initial reaction to Abbott’s anti-Hanson slush fund was, “He shouldn’t have lied to the media, but so what? If Hanson and Ettridge committed a crime, somebody should push for their prosecution.” As I’m no great fan of Tony Abbott’s, this was difficult — I really wanted to jump on the bandwagon and bash him for yet another example of his unfitness for office.

I subsequently read in this leader that Abbott’s behaviour was more than just shady, it was possibly illegal:

Mr Abbott says his shadowy operations were motivated by his belief that One Nation jeopardised not only his government but Australian social cohesion.

That is a judgement anyone is entitled to make or to dispute. That is political freedom. It is one thing, however, to wish to counter a political threat. It is another to actively promote and assist in legal proceedings to that end. … Mr Abbot now concedes he twice arranged pro-bono lawyers to assist Mr Sharples. His actions have a whiff of the old offence of maintenance and champerty, meddling in another’s law suit for his own advantage.

The tone of that sentence implies that maintenance and champerty are a couple of old laws that are no longer on the books. However, Ozplogistan’s resident legal eagle Ken Parish informs us that Queensland might not yet have repealed them:

As far as I can see on a very quick search, although the tort of maintenance has been abolished in several States, it still exists in Queensland. Moreover, it’s difficult to see Abbott and his fellow Sharples benefactors successfully making out any of the defences discussed above. Hanson may yet have the last laugh.

Indeed, though she will be (thankfully) laughing from a prison she shares (as the Herald Sun relevantly pointed out) with a lesbian vampire killer.

In a June 1999 Green Paper on Legal Profession Reform, the Queensland Government rejected a proposal to abolish maintenance and champerty in order to allow contingency fees for litigation (pdf, pp20-21). The torts were certainly on the books in Queensland in 2001, when the case of Elfic Ltd & Ors v Macks & Ors (pdf) was heard, and I don’t think they’ve been repealed since then.

Still, I’m not quite ready to sink the boot into Abbott. I have a question about the law’s application in this case. In Elfic v Macks, McMurdo P makes the following comment (p18[63]):

The essence of the civil tort of maintenance is “… the officious intermeddling in and supporting litigation in which the maintainer has no legitimate interest, the invasion of a person’s right not to be harried in courts of justice by litigation”.

Does Tony Abbott (or any other Australian taxpayer, voter, citizen or resident, for that matter) not have a legitimate interest in seeing Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge held accountable for fraudulently registering a political party and fraudulently obtaining $500 000 of public funding? Essentially, does the right of Hanson “not to be harried in courts of justice by litigation” outweight the right of the Australian public to have faith in the integrity of their democratic system of governance?

I’m not convinced. While the electorate might find Abbott’s actions to have been dishonest, underhand or generally repugnant, to find that they were illegal would in my view go too far.

On the other hand, there are some aspects of the situation that I am more concerned by, and they concern Abbott’s methods in raising money for the slush fund. First, did the Minister offer favours in return for donations? Sharples says that’s what Abbott told him, and Abbott doesn’t deny saying it:

Asked if Mr Sharples was a liar, Mr Abbott said: “We all have recollections of events.

“And certainly I don’t recollect ever making any comment remotely like that.”

The alleged donor involved is “construction magnate” Harold Clough. It’s not hard to imagine the sorts of favours the rabidly anti-CFMEU Abbott might have offered a construction boss. It would also be good to find out exactly what John Samuels did on Abbott’s instruction. He was allegedly the “bagman” who organised donations from WA businessmen (presumably including Clough), and who Sharples claims made threats against his life. Unfortunately, the truth about those claims will probably never be known.

Second, there are some questions about the disclosure requirements of such funds:

When the matter of Mr Abbott’s funding of people to take legal action against One Nation was raised in a Senate committee last year, the commission admitted such funds were “uncharted waters” in terms of electoral law.

The commission said it considered “it would be worthwhile seeking formal legal advice on the matter” on June 8 last year. So far no more detailed answer has come back.

Given that the AEC advised Abbott that he was not required to disclose details of donors to the funds, he is probably safe from any criminal proceedings. However, there is a possibility that he will be forced to make a belated disclosure. This is definitely desirable. I would not be surprised if other very senior Liberal and National politicians had made donations. I wouldn’t be surprised if Labor and Democrat pollies had made donations. I wouldn’t be surprised if Howard had made a donation, which would obviously have massive implications for the future of his government.

Most importantly, uncovering Abbott’s dodgy fundraising practices would allow me to join in all the fun!

In summary, I suppose, I hope Hanson refrains from suing Abbott, but I hope the AEC forces Abbott to disclose the sources of his slush funds. I think pursuing a fraudulently registered political party is a legitimate (and even noble) course of action, but I think it needs to be done in a very open and accountable manner. Otherwise, it would be a matter of defending our democracy with one hand while beating the shit out of it with the other.

Carita once asked you all to keep our friend Manuel in your thoughts during his struggle for a permanent visa. I’m pleased to be able to inform you that he, his wife, and his young children will be allowed to remain in Australia permanently.

Well, we’re back.

Brisbane was pretty much a waste of time; Melbourne was fantastic; skiing was awesome.

If I haven’t replied to your email, it’s because I have several hundred to get through and I’m pretty sure my Yahoo account started bouncing them after a while.

I almost decided last night to discontinue my blog. We’ll see.

It’s off to Brisbane/Melbourne/Mt Buller we go.

I’m hoping to meet up with Tim Dunlop while he’s in Australia. Anyone else wants to grab a coffee or a beer or something, email me.

Posting will naturally be light, I hope to take some happy-snaps and will chuck them up here in good time.

With the Young Labor National Conference on this weekend, I’m looking forward to what Crikey has to say. They’ve commented on the event before, during the ALP leadership debacle:

Wayne Swan supports his leader

As the Federal Labor leadership issue continues to simmer, the tentacles of the ABC - Anyone But Crean - campaign appear to have stretched all the way to the sandpit as preparations continue for the National Young Labor Conference, to be held on 27 and 28 July.

Queensland AWU operative and former Wayne Swan staffer Lauren McGregor, the current right wing president of Young Labor, is displaying all the skills that made the right in the sunshine state justly famous.

Historically Young Labor conferences have been held in Canberra, on the basis that it is the most central for delegates around the country, and also because it allows the leader to make the keynote address at the conference. Sime was booked to attend three months ago. Much to the frustration of ALP national office, this time McGregor is campaigning hard to ensure the conference takes place in Brisbane, effectively excluding Crean from attending. Remarkably, Swan happens to be available to speak on the day.

Indeed, would-be leader Swan is very keen to host the weekend, and has planned a welcoming function, a cocktail party and a dinner for right wing operatives over the week end, as part of his campaign to distinguish himself from a certain other banana benders with high aspirations and boost his national party profile.

Due to a Left-wing stuff-up, the Right won a Young Labor National Executive vote and the conference will be held in Brisbane. What’s more, it looks like Crikey is right — it’s shaping up to be an anti-Crean event.

The flyer circulated advertising the conference dinner is blazoned with the names and photos of Wayne Swan and fellow Queensland Right-winger, Arch Bevis. Perhaps realising that this would (as it does every year) alienate the Left-wing delegates and minimise Swan’s chance of pulling a decent crowd, McGregor has belatedly balanced things up: the conference agenda notes a third dinner speaker — the Left’s Anthony Albanese.

Gee, I wonder why Swan’s camp would want him speaking? The Age today announced, “Crean avoids row over airport site.” I’m going to wait until after this weekend’s conference. Even if Albanese doesn’t repeat his criticisms of Crean’s handling of the Sydney airport scandal, you can bet that Swan, Bevis and Albo are not about to sing their leader’s praises.

(Oh, and there’s another interesting speaker scheduled for the conference: Queensland State Secretary Cameron Milner. McGregor wouldn’t have had much trouble fu… booking him.)