
Smirk on the water
Morrison’s final act as PM was a fitting reflection of his time in officeIndustry Minister Christian Porter (Image © Lukas Coch / AAP Image) and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary Phil Gaetjens (Image © Mick Tsikas / AAP Image)
It is a sad day for Australian women and public transparency, with the dual confirmation that important information about parliament’s most high-profile rape allegations will remain hidden from view – for now. Last night, news broke that the head of the prime minister’s department, Phil Gaetjens, had suspended (for a second time) his inexplicably drawn-out inquiry into who knew what in the prime minister’s office about Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation, on the basis that it might prejudice the ACT criminal proceedings – though there was no explanation as to why his simple inquiry has not yet been wrapped up, six months after it was announced, three and half months after it was last resumed, and after several promises it was almost finished. This morning, it was confirmed that media outlets would not be allowed to report on the already suppressed parts of the ABC’s defence to Christian Porter’s defamation claim, which he so desperately does not want the public to see, as the Federal Court ruled that Nine and News Corp cannot publish the documents they acquired through the court process. Gaetjens, in announcing his inquiry’s second suspension, said no inferences could be drawn from his decision to suspend the inquiry. On the contrary: many inferences might be drawn from the government’s ongoing cover-up of these two cases, from its refusal to hold (or even finish) inquiries to its desperate desire to see the back of such proceedings. Much might be inferred from the vast trove of information we have, even if the Morrison government refuses to see it.
The former attorney-general scored another “win” today in his quest to have as little information as possible made public regarding the heinous rape allegations levelled against him – allegations that he denies. After previously ruling that 27 pages of the ABC’s evidence be scrubbed from the public file, Justice Jayne Jagot has now ordered – as requested by Porter – that Nine and News Corp cannot use or report on the secretive pages, which they acquired from Porter’s lawyers via the proceedings. Porter’s desperate attempts to have the ABC’s evidence suppressed, then removed from the court file altogether, and now prevented from being used by journalists, have long prompted conjecture. Why, after all, would Porter – who was so outspoken in launching proceedings to clear his name – choose to walk away from the trial without clearing his name? Why is he so intent on making sure the public never sees materials regarding a crime he apparently didn’t commit?
Today’s ruling further buries the documents, with Nine and News Corp unable to use them by court decree. That’s not to say that the evidence can’t come out in other ways, with those involved still free to share what they know, but they would be at risk of themselves being sued for defamation. Similarly, media outlets can choose to report on the documents if they acquire them by means other than through the court process, but they too wouldn’t have the legal protection provided by public documents. But the culture of fear and silence that has risen up around the case has created its own insinuations, as does the government’s refusal to hold an inquiry into Porter’s fitness for office, despite endless calls and an obvious need for one.
Not that calling an inquiry into something seems to make much difference these days. The mysterious Gaetjens inquiry has seemingly failed to figure out who knew of Higgins’ allegations, despite the inquiry having been run on and off since February, and despite Gaetjens telling Senate estimates in May that it had resumed and would be completed within weeks (and despite many people having worked out much of the story for Gaetjens before he even began). Of course, there is good reason for that line of questioning to cease now that the case is finally before the courts, with a fair and unprejudiced trial of utmost importance. But why on earth has it not been completed before now? Why would Morrison, so adamant that he only found out about the rape allegation the day the story broke, not have asked Gaetjens to make it a priority to get to the bottom of this? And why, if the prime minister has nothing to hide, has the government repeatedly insisted that the results of the inquiry won’t be made public? Why is Morrison more than happy to share other reports that “exonerate” his office? There are many inferences to be made about the fact that this relatively simple investigation has been drawn out, delayed and suspended, not least that the entire “inquiry” is a cunning sham, originally aimed at distracting from the fact that Morrison pointlessly misled the nation about what he knew, and then simply left unfinished in the hope we would forget. The conclusion now being drawn is that the government won’t have to “reopen” this investigation until after the next election, meaning the handling of Higgins’ case is once again being dictated by electoral considerations.
Neither of these new blows to transparency arrive as a huge surprise, coming as they do from a prime minister’s office that abhors accountability and a government minister who has already worked ruthlessly to silence his critics. There was little expectation that we were going to learn anything meaningful from Gaetjens’ inquiry, based on the man’s track record. But we didn’t really need to. Plenty has been inferred from what they don’t want us to know.
|
Smirk on the water
Morrison’s final act as PM was a fitting reflection of his time in officeDesperately tweaking Sussan
Ley for deputy would be yet another sign that the Liberal Party isn’t listeningSame same but Dutton
The electorate won’t forget who Peter Dutton is, no matter how much the Liberal Party tries to rebrand himGreen light
The Labor Party has a clear directive from the electorate to go further on climateCannes Film Festival 2022 highlights: part one
Mia Hansen-Løve’s ‘One Fine Morning’, Charlotte Le Bon’s ‘Falcon Lake’ and Dmytro Sukholytkyy-Sobchuk’s ‘Pamfir’ were bright spots in an otherwise underwhelming line-upThe art of the teal
Amid the long decline of the major parties, have independents finally solved the problem of lopsided campaign financing laws?The end of Liberal reign in Kooyong
At the Auburn Hotel on election night, hope coalesces around Monique RyanOnlyFans and the adults in the room
The emerging OnlyFans community offering training and support to adult-content creators