An abundance of caution … Porter sunk and lost on the “fit and proper” standard … The politician who shot himself in both knees … End is nigh … Previous explanations full of holes … More about the trust
Even Morrison cocked an eyebrow at Porter’s “blind trust” wheeze, sending it off to his department for inspection – the same department that specialises in cover-ups – sports rorts, car parks and Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation, for starters.
Pointedly, the PM hasn’t asked the solicitor general for advice.
It’s blindingly obvious that Porter’s $1 million blind trust is designed to defeat the regime governing the disclosure of MPs outside, personal, and extra-mural interests – including trusts of which they are beneficiaries.
Porter has a record as long as your arm of hiding, fudging and misleading.
At his March 2 tear-stained media conference he said the alleged rape never happened and that he can’t remember “any contact” with the victim “since that time in January 1988”.
“I did not sleep with the victim. We didn’t have anything of that nature happen between us …
I remember the person as an intelligent, bright, happy person, but I hadn’t had any contact from that person, at all, to the best of my recollection, in the 33 years since that time in January 1988.”
Yet Kate, who took her own life in June 2020, claimed in her unsworn affidavit she had dinner with Porter in Perth six years after the alleged rape.
Then Macquarie banker James Hooke in a statement given to NSW Police said Porter had boasted to him in the early 1990s that he had sex with the alleged rape victim.
Hooke had been a friend of both Kate and Porter. It is Hooke’s evidence in the ABC’s truth defence that Porter so desperately battled to hide from public view.
Then there was the episode in a Canberra bar where Porter as attorney general was seen in full view on a couch snogging a young female staffer.
The fact that dozens of people witnessed what was going on made his subsequent denial risible.
Further, he failed to bring forward workable anti-corruption legislation and the “religious freedom” bill was a mess. His main contribution as attorney general was to stack the AAT with Liberal Party favourites.
What then can be believed about his disclosure of the blind trust paying lumps of the legal costs for his ill-fated defamation action against the ABC and journalism Louise Milligan?
In view of Porter’s track record with the truth it’s difficult to accept at face value that he does not have any “access to information about the conduct and funding of the trust”.
He would know the identity of the trustee and if the funds were paid to him directly he would know from which bank they came. The identity of the trustee would lead to a trail of breadcrumbs pointing to who would be paying the organ grinders.
If the funds are paid directly to his lawyers they would be obliged on money-laundering ground to know the source of the funds. The Solicitors Regulatory Authority in Britain has made this a requirement.
The trustee, of course, would have to pass the 100 point ID test at the bank to open the account.
There are requirements under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism rules which deal with the identification of beneficiaries of trusts and transactions involving “politically exposed persons”.
The bank that is used for moving money into and out of the trust would have to meet the requirements of the AML/CTF instrument as part of its anti-money-laundering obligations.
We asked Porter’s PR person, Grant Taylor, a former hack at the Worst Australian:
Needless to say, Grant didn’t reply – the usual practice of government flack-merchants who are paid large sums not to answer questions. It does suggest that honest answers would not be helpful for his boss.
When George Pell was before the courts it is understood that John Roskam from the Institute of Paid Advocacy was shaking the can around town for funds to assist with the Cardinal’s legal costs.
When it comes to Porter’s “blind trust”, the IPA’s involvement with its significant benefactor, Western Australian mining billionaire Gina Rinehart, cannot be discounted – particularly as a large sum has been allocated to the trust.
If it is decided Morrison’s wobbly standards have been breached, then either Porter resigns or pays back the money, which is likely to send him bankrupt and ineligible to sit in parliament.
In all of this it’s nice to see Malcolm Turnbull and shadow AG Mark Dreyfus having a bit of fun.
Turnbull, who loathes Blue Balls, said Porter’s blind trust …
“… flies in the face of every principle of transparency and accountability in public life … This is an absolute affront.”
Dreyfus said it was an “outrageous abuse of his office”.
“If Mr Porter genuinely doesn’t know who his donors are he shouldn’t accept their money. Did the money come from criminals? A foreign power? Apparently, Mr Porter doesn’t care.”
Treasurer Frydenberg brought all his ethical fibre to the issue, saying he can’t see anything wrong with Porter’s arrangement, because taxpayer funds are not involved.
Porter has been inflicting pain on himself, particularly from the moment he decided to sue the ABC over Louise Milligan’s online story.
As a litigant in the Federal Court he could no longer hold the position of attorney general. Then he lost his barrister Sue Chrysanthou after a court finding she was conflicted. Costs were mounting particularly as he had lawyers in court arguing that Chrysanthou should remain on his case.
Once he saw the ABC’s defence he scrambled for cover. Now he’s in shtuck over his sneaky method of circumventing the disclosure requirements – an arrangement that leaves open possibilities for corrupt conduct.
The South Australian coroner has a copy of the ABC’s defence and is to examine the circumstances that lead to Kate taking her own life.
There are soundings for a private prosecution and a top criminal silk is reviewing the underlying evidence before a final decision is made on filing a case against Porter.
If this blindly bad trust doesn’t sink him, these later proceedings will.