Blind trust in democracy doesn’t serve us well

HOW good is democracy?

Let’s get to the heart of the “blind trust” lie straight away.

Former federal Attorney General Christian Porter claimed his legal fees for his defamation action against the ABC were paid by money in a blind trust funded by anonymous donors.

It was neither a trust, as it was not Porter entrusting his assets to a trustee to manage, nor is it blind, as Porter as the beneficiary could find out the identity of the donors who wanted to support his legal action.

To call the fund a “blind trust” is deliberate obfuscation by Porter, his political party and his media supporters to deflect scrutiny and massage public opinion. A blind trust has an air of propriety and arms’ length plausible deniability that the true definition, “slush fund”, does not.

I don’t hold out any hope, but the media must stop saying blind trust and use slush fund.

He has claimed the managers of the blind trust/slush fund have assured him no lobbyists or prohibited foreign entities were among the donors. Not exactly the height of due diligence.

Porter has indicated he feels no compulsion to reveal the identities of the donors, and of course insisted the disclosure of the blind trust was subject to that other great façade of propriety: “within parliamentary rules”.

Continuing the deflection and PR massaging strategy, the terms were heard coming from the mouths of Porter’s Party colleagues, right up to and including senior members of the government.

Under questioning on Sky News, Treasurer Josh Frydenburg repeatedly declared Porter had disclosed the blind trust within the requirements of parliamentary rules, and deflected a question of the ethics of receiving an anonymous dona- tion as “dealing in hypotheticals”.

To hide behind parliamentary rules is behaviour unbefitting a public servant and demonstrably shows the rules do not serve the interests of the people these public servants are sworn to serve.

To recap, up to this point in this drama we have an ex-attorney General expending energy to fight a defamation case with funds from an unknown source, pushing the boundaries of parliamentary standards, aided by party and media protection.

It would be easy to see the whole matter fading away amid the multitude of scandals, rorts and duplicitous behaviour that degrades any number of elected leaders. Obviously, that is the preferred outcome for the players in this melodrama.

Things took a serious turn last month however, when the government prioritised party over democratic process by deliberately preventing sitting members from voting on referring Porter’s blind trust to the parliamentary privileges committee.

Labor had asked for the referral, citing Porter as being in possible contempt of the rules regarding disclosure of parliamentarian’s interests.

After considering Labor’s motion, Speaker Liberal Tony Smith ruled after “careful consideration” he was “satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out and I’m willing to give precedence to a motion concerning privilege or contempt”. This sounds like an act of good governance in the public interest.

The leader of the government in the Lower House, Peter Dutton, had other ideas.

Dutton refused cross-benchers working remotely in their electorate from participating in the vote, claiming “impractical” reasons (despite Senators voting remotely since 2020). With the two cross-benchers out of the way, the casting vote by the Speaker would not need to be called upon. Given the Speaker’s satisfaction with the prima facie case, the government could not be put in a position where the Speaker’s casting vote could be the vote to allow the referral which would air Porter’s dirty linen.

Dutton then went one step further by writing to the Chair of the

Privileges Committee, Liberal Russell Broadbent, asking for clarification of the rules around donations for MP legal fees – therefore entwining this scandal in bureaucratic time-wasting until after the next election.

Dutton’s behind-the-scenes subvergence not only robbed the cross-benchers’ constituents from participating in the democratic process, but highlights the lengths the government will go to in the name of secrecy and protecting the interests of its party members.

And yet the media have been virtually silent. The voting down of a committee referral following a recommendation by the Speaker is an unprecedented event in the life of the Australian Parliament.

And the Governor-general is nowhere to be seen or heard.

Now remember how we arrived at this point – a defamation action by the highest law officer in the land, funded by secret sources, protected by a party willing to manipulate parliament to their advantage – then realise there is no mystery in why trust in government is at rock bottom.

` To hide behind parliamentary rules... shows the rules do not serve the interests of the people these public servants are sworn to serve...