Lawyers have to be fit and proper – why not the attorney general? … Schmo Morrison’s crack legal team on hand … Silk emails the PM to set him straight … Where to now with Porter? … Polly Peck in Canberra 

On hand are Janet (The Planet) Albrechtsen and the Muddled Headed Merritt – both on Lord Murdoch’s drip. 

Merritt in his usual understated manner declared “the outrageous treatment” of the AG sees us “entering a new dark age that erodes public trust in the media and the institutions that govern society”. 

Planet Janet was even more hot under the collar, writing that the demand for an independent inquiry has “trashed not just sound journalism, but also our democracy”. 

If only those making the demands had a proper “grounding in the law”, she wailed.  

Schmo got the message and announced that Porter is “an innocent man under our law”. This is what happens when you get grounded by Janet. 

Some actual professional lawyers have other ideas. Perth silk Rod Hooper wrote by email to Morrison on March 11, saying: 

“In relation to the historical allegations of misconduct by the attorney, many persons with legal training have been keen to point out that Mr Porter is entitled to the ‘presumption of innocence’ and to enjoy the same rights as every other citizen facing such allegations. 

Surely this misses the point and may be disingenuous given that there is no prospect of charge or conviction and the issue is not whether the attorney is a criminal but whether he is a fit and proper person to hold the office of attorney general of the Commonwealth. 

All lawyers are aware that they need to satisfy the relevant authority on an annual basis that they are a ‘fit and proper’ person to be able to practice law. Presumably, no lesser standard should apply to the attorney.”

Hooper points to things that “may impugn the suitability of the attorney” such as: 

As minister for social security in 2017 The Christian failed to attend the final hearing of the Royal Commission into child abuse. Present at the ceremonial wrap-up of the hearings was PM Turnbull, opposition leader Shorten and other senior politicians. 

Instead, Porter opted to go to the test cricket at the WACA with little Winston Howard. That is another blot on his fitness, even though not included in Rod Hooper’s list. 

They are not “culture” warriors on an hysterical partisan mission to support a political bruiser. 

It’s not as though conservative politicians have always opposed the idea of independent inquiries – viz. the Justice Lionel Murphy case where even after the Supreme Court had found him not guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice, parliament established a three man judicial inquiry to investigate the “my little mate” case and anything else that could be dredged up. 

There are instances of politicians who have walked the plank for far less than an allegation of rape. 

NSW premier Barry O’Farrell resigned immediately he realised he had misled ICAC over receiving a bottle of wine from a lobbyist. 

Former NSW politician Raphael (Ray) Septimus Maher resigned as speaker of the Legislative Assembly after he was accused of exposing himself to his secretary. 

He claimed that he had forgotten to adjust the zip of his trousers after using the urinal, which was disputed by his accusers who claimed the fly of his trousers was secured by buttons, not a zip. 

He was subsequently acquitted on a related criminal charge. 

Justinian’s sister organ, 500 WORDS or thereabouts, also had a story this week casting doubt on Porter’s sincerity. It was drawn from a 2009 interview in the WA Law Society Journal Brief, where the then state attorney general said he had learned a trick or two in his media training class: 

“In effect, you’re told to unlearn what you’ve learnt in 10 years of legal practice because you’re not trying to convince an audience of a factual or legal matter. You are trying to create an impression and put across a very simple and understandable view succinctly. You’re not required to answer questions and you’re not even expected to answer a question. You’re expected to put across a message.”  

The message is – don’t inquire into anything that may produce unexpected findings.