Old Haleian Stephen Saunders imagines addressing Old Boys’ Day of 19 March, to review the Christian Porter imbroglio.   

---------------

DEAR PRINCIPAL, teachers, distinguished guests, old boys and present pupils. I begin by acknowledging the Noongar people, traditional custodians of the land on which we meet today. I pay my respects to their elders past and present.

Finally, I revisit this splendid military memorial hall, having missed Hale’s 2008 sesquicentenary. The invite had a space for a son, not a daughter, to co-attend.

No way can I shirk today’s topic. As the Hale website declares: ‘find your frontier, your son is unique’. The boys’ school that nurtured Christian Porter has taught WA Liberal and Labor premiers. Its Forrests, from Alexander to Andrew, have changed state history. Soldiers, scholars and sportsmen abound. A magnificent focus of prestige and power.  

Unlike me, I’m afraid. In the 1960s, I was an accidental tourist from the wrong end of the Perth rail line. My awesome Armadale Primary teacher, Normia Turner, liked to set her pupils for the private-school scholarships. 

Sure, I debated for Hale. WA artist Robert Juniper switched me on to art. “Monkey” Marshall made me a lifelong Francophile.

Organised Christianity was novel to me. The elders’ talk scarcely predicted their walk. Bullying was common. Corporal punishment, also new to me, was popular.

Luckily, there were boys who shared my love of American culture and I got cut loose from the compulsory cadet corps. Though the school could never fault my academic marks, we remained an awkward fit.

It’s been easy to humorise my Hale years as a bracing sort of political and ethical boot-camp. Lately, I’ve been stung to bitter tears instead. 

This is no direct comment on the worst accusation against the Attorney-General. Hale hasn’t said much either. Although, the alleged offence occurred just weeks after the youth you glorified departed his final school assembly. 

The late 1980s Hale experience seemed to push Porter’s entitlement beyond his enlightenment. At university, his scoffing at women was persistent and unkind. It was as if Germaine Greer and the second wave of feminism had never been.  

Similarly, when the Brittany Higgins scandal broke, Prime Minister Scott Morrison cynically leaned on his wife and daughters. Not for the first time.

Yet the principal claims boys’ schools are particularly “well placed” to educate for respectful relationships.  A recent grad says misogyny persists.

As in Britain, the germ of our ruling class is entitled lads from de luxe schools. Hence, rote apologies must still be trotted out, for bad boys in blazers.

The more Morrison pummels Lady Justice, the more I reject a Parliament led by frat boys. The day of women’s marches for justice, Morrison jeered: we didn’t shoot you. So much for Jenny and the girls. Meanwhile, Porter launched an exquisitely lawyerly defamation suit.

Women and men chanting: enough is enough. Frat boys calculating: we can stare this down.  

That besieged first law officer, what values does he represent? Liberty, equality and fraternity? The rule of law? The school motto of duty?

To me, his stint echoes the Hale I once knew. Do as I say, if not as I do.

His pursuit of East Timor whistle-blowers underscores partisan approaches to law and regulation. His own profession fought his Family Court demolition, for being anti-women. 

The "first justice" is a better role model. Confronted by abuse inside the High Court, Susan Kiefel didn't leave everything to the cops. Instead, a brisk inquiry unstitched Dyson Heydon, the boy from Shore. The Court might become a safer workplace.

Who am I to remonstrate further? For my learned guides, I turn once again to France and America. 

Thomas Piketty’s first and second door-stoppers are among key books of early 21st-Century politics and economics. Be acquainted with them, even if our politicians and economists seem to avoid them.

Senior economists still blame “technological change” for Australia’s low wage growth and rising inequality after the 1970s. That’s debatable.

If you distrust the “leftish” Frenchman, read great American economist Robert Gordon. He shows that many life-transforming tech changes happened from 1870 to 1970. Glittery info-tech developments post-1990 are less transformative than we think.

In Piketty, the burgeoning democratic equality of 1920-75 is anomalous. Brushing off the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 and COVID-19, higher inequality is once again the rage, via government policy. Cutting progressive taxes, transferring wealth, from labour back to capital.

What’s the connection to Hale? I like to describe it as a marvellous machine for the generational transmission of wealth, class and family. Through the male line, that is.  

This isn’t news. As Piketty says, it’s routine historically. Feudal or modern, all states have what he calls 'inequality regimes'. Justified by narratives and systems.

A crucial 20th-Century narrative is meritocracy, which American philosopher Michael Sandel skewers as a “tyranny”.

He shows “leftish” leaders like Tony Blair and Barack Obama eagerly embracing the idea that, in the globalised world, you just have to get an education. Then, you can always make it if you try. If you fall short, by implication, it must be your fault.

In rich democracies, as Piketty documents, the “left” parties have come to represent the educated elite. “Right” parties still serve the moneyed elite. 

In Australian terms, left is Labor and Greens, right Liberal and National. The party for everyday workers? Dunno if we still have one. Maybe you boys could work on that.

More likely, you’ll go with the flow. No matter how competitive and successful you are, check your Haleian privilege. Even if there is no god, they may come back to chastise you.

Some closing thoughts on this sumptuous school. For rich families, annual fees up to $27,000 for high-school day-boys are chump change. Other parents move heaven and earth. Meanwhile, Hale scholarships now extend to Indigenous Australians.

Australia’s school campuses show that, by OECD standards, ours is a two-tier schooling system, with church schools as the preferred provider. Disadvantaged students are ever more segregated into disadvantaged schools. Often, these are state schools.

Boys, if your parents claim church schools save taxpayer dollars, look askance. Increasingly, these schools are being government-funded at rates similar to state schools.

Simultaneously, they retain special dispensations. Like uncapped fees, picking and choosing students, and anti-discrimination waivers. Nice gig. 

Yet, Porter pushed the discriminatory Religious Discrimination Bill. It could give your school further dispensations, while protecting its funding status.

Also in 2008, our daughter was offered a high-school place at co-ed Radford, a plush ACT Anglican school. Instead, she chose the local high school. 

Eyebrows went up. The choice, however, was right for her. For all the ensuing Gonski iterations, the Federal Government isn’t making it any easier to choose state schools. So, if Hale plays its cards, its WA dominion may continue.

Your recurrent income is about $40 million privately, mostly from parents, plus $10 million federal and state funds. Your strategic plan urges “authentic” male development, sharing values of integrity, personal excellence, resilience, creativity, service and courage. 

Fine stuff, but the Porter imbroglio is another wake-up call. On what safe grounds would wealthy boys’ schools still make girls the “other”? And be rewarded by governments for doing so?

You, Shore, St Peters and the like are cosy with these governments. They won’t pressure you overmuch. Refresh your social licence for yourselves.

Drawing 90% of its boys-only from the upper-middle and top socio-economic quarters, Hale is no immediate force for progressive equality. What do you do to counter that?  What is your broader social contract?

Unlike state schools, you’re free to take stands on issues. How often would you do that?  

To take just one example, you celebrate WA mining titans like Forrest and Peter Wright. Young Indigenous actor Meyne Wyatt also brings kudos.

But what do you think of the persistent hypocrisies from Forrest and the WA Government, regarding mining royalties and disturbances on Indigenous lands?

You can work ethically, against your students’ wealth and complacency. You’re free to send contemporary justice and politics right into the classroom. A co-ed Hale might place its pupils ahead of the sexual equality curve, not badly adrift like ex-prefect Porter. 

You could teach towards humbler grads, who might want something more generous than the selfish neo-liberal consensus. Who might protect the much-degraded world biodiversity hotspot that is the Noongar heartlands?  

Ironic, isn’t it, boys? Such is the private power of brand-name boys’ schools; it’s left in their own hands to lift their contributions to the public good. Perhaps unfairly, they give the appearance of helping the Federal Government keep women in their place.

Class of 2021, and your partners-to-be, think twice about sending your sons to a boys-only Hale. How would that align with the health and safety standards of 2040 or 2050?

Read more:

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/on-christian-porter-boys-schools-perpetuate-parliamentary-boys-club-,14899

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is considering legal advice about Attorney-General Christian Porter in a step that could lead him to move the cabinet minister to a different position while he sues the ABC over its reporting of allegations of rape against him.

Mr Morrison told Parliament on Wednesday he was looking at the ministerial guidelines in relation to Mr Porter’s position, signalling a decision on whether he would remain Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations.

In a remark that offered no praise for Mr Porter, the Prime Minister said he was yet to conclude his assessment of the legal advice, which came from Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue.

“I am considering that advice with my department secretary, in terms of the application against the ministerial guidelines and when I have concluded that assessment, I’ll make a determination and I’ll make an announcement at that time,” Mr Morrison told Question Time.

Coalition MPs interpreted the comment as a sign the Prime Minister could leave Mr Porter to “hang out to dry” as the government grapples with a political backlash from some women over its response to weeks of debate about violence against women.

Mr Porter took leave after a press conference on March 3 when he identified himself as the cabinet minister mentioned in media reports about an alleged rape in 1988. He vehemently denies the historical allegation that he raped a 16-year-old girl while he was a teenager.

“Nothing in the allegations that have been printed ever happened,” he said.

He is due back from leave on March 30 and intends to resume his two portfolios and his position in cabinet, but some of his Coalition colleagues worry his return would further weaken the government as it tries to show women it is hearing their concerns.

Defence Minister Linda Reynolds is also tipped to depart the cabinet after spending two nights in hospital in late February over heart trouble when she was under pressure over her handling of the alleged rape of her former adviser, Brittany Higgins.

Senator Reynolds has set a date to return to her job on April 2, which is Good Friday, but some of her colleagues expect her to resign

Read more:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/christian-porter-s-job-in-the-balance-while-pm-considers-legal-advice-20210324-p57dpr.html

Read from top

FREE ASSANGE NOW !

NSW detectives investigating the historical rape allegation against former attorney-general Christian Porter were denied permission to travel to South Australia to interview the complainant by the state's police Deputy Commissioner David Hudson.

• The NSW Deputy Police chief denied the investigators' request to travel to interview Christian Porter's accuser in SA

• The application for travel was denied over "insufficient detail" to justify why the trip could not be deferred during COVID-19 restrictions

• The trip was already signed off by the head of the NSW Police Child Abuse and Sex Crimes Squad

This was despite the trip having been recommended for approval by the head of the NSW Police Child Abuse and Sex Crimes Squad.

Four Corners can reveal Deputy Commissioner David Hudson declined to approve the trip during the March 2020 COVID restrictions, citing "insufficient detail … to justify why this travel cannot be deferred."

The revelation is included in a new cache of documents provided by NSW Police (NSWP) to the state's parliament, in response to an 'order for papers' in relation to Strike Force Wyndarra, which was set up to investigate the allegation.

The documents contain previously undisclosed details of the actions of NSW Police and their South Australian counterparts during the investigation.

Christian Porter has strenuously denied the allegation and is currently suing the ABC for defamation.

The woman, who had a history of mental illness, took her own life in June last year, the day after she told police "she no longer felt able to proceed with the report [to police]".

The documents show the complainant first contacted SA Police (SAPOL) in November 2019, "seeking information on the process involved in reporting a sexual assault".

She did not want to make a formal statement at this stage but indicated "she may decide to make a formal report to NSWP at a later stage".

SAPOL forwarded the initial information to NSW Police because the alleged incident had occurred in Sydney, one evening during an elite debating competition in 1988.

SAPOL advised, "should the [alleged] victim decide to formally report the matter, that they would again contact the NSWPF to commence an investigation".

Over the following months, SAPOL met or spoke with the complainant several times and continued to provide "victim support".

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-12/nsw-police-denied-travel-interview-christian-porter-accuser/100061776

Read from top.

Free Julian Assange Now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Former Australia Post chief Christine Holgate has engaged a team of leading lawyers, raising the possibility of legal action that could draw in a number of Morrison government ministers.

Holgate has engaged top reputational risk lawyer Rebekah Giles and barrister Arthur Moses, who have invited Australia Post, communications minister Paul Fletcher and finance minister Simon Birmingham to mediation.

Holgate is eyeing potential claims beyond the breach of contract she alleges against her employer, including negligence, tortious interference in contractual relations and defamation – although she is seeking a settlement to avoid litigation.

Australia Post denies Holgate’s claim its chair, Lucio di Bartolomeo, unlawfully stood her down from her job, insisting she agreed to stand aside and later resigned over the politically-charged saga surrounding a gift of $20,000 worth of Cartier watches to senior executives.

In addition to blaming di Bartolomeo, Holgate argues she was bullied out of the job by Scott Morrison, who declared in parliament if she did not wish to stand aside voluntarily “she can go”.

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/22/christine-holgate-engages-leading-lawyers-over-australia-post-dispute

Read from top

assange2

Former attorney-general Christian Porter has once again sought to have his side of the story prioritised, with a Federal Court judge agreeing to his lawyer’s demands that sections of the ABC’s defence against his defamation proceedings be kept confidential until a later hearing can determine whether they should be struck out altogether. The dispute relates to three schedules and a paragraph, which Porter’s lawyers suggest are scandalous, vexatious, ambiguous or “otherwise an abuse of the process of the court”, but which the ABC’s counsel suggest constitute “effectively … our entire defence”. The ABC believes its defence should be made public in its entirety. But Porter wants only the ABC’s redacted defence published – along with hisfull reply – and he’s likely to get his way, with Justice Jayne Jagot supporting that approach this morning. Porter, who wanted this case heard in court, has demanded that the ABC prove its claims, but has cried foul over its method of doing so, not wanting its purportedly supporting facts to be considered, or placed on the record. What “scandalous” or “vexatious” details does he not want heard?

The ABC’s defence, we’ve now learnt, will rely both on qualified privilege – suggesting that the allegations against Porter were in the public interest, and reasonable to report in the circumstances – as well as a “substantial truth defence to many of the imputations that have been pleaded”, involving at least 15 witnesses. The contested schedules – which ABC counsel Renee Enbom said were “the substance of the defence” – appear to relate to truth; lawyer Sue Chrysanthou SC, acting for Porter, said the particulars were “not the substance of the defence” and that “the ABC are not pleading truth for most of his case” (Enbom disagreed). The ABC has accused Porter’s team of seeking to “control” how the case is reported, noting that “the principles of open justice … require that the proceedings be reported in a fair and accurate way, not in a one-sided way or a way that suits one party”.

Porter, whose word, mental health and need for “justice” have been elevated by some in the media over that of his accuser at every turn, has now had his right to privacy prioritised too, for the moment at least, even though this is a dispute he wanted heard. As many wrote at the time of his defamation filing, being the plaintiff in a defamation case puts Porter firmly back in control, especially in Australia, where the public interest rules are stacked against the media. Not to mention, as Richard Ackland noted in The Saturday Paper, these trials “frequently hinge on what is left out of the case”, with “lots of the embarrassing bits about the person suing end[ing] up on the cutting-room floor”. What was meant to be “a substitute for the Inquiry We Didn’t Get to Have” (as Jo Dyer, a friend of the deceased accuser, tweeted) will instead be an inquiry in which Porter can contest which details are heard and which are suppressed.

Everyone will now be wondering exactly what is contained in the contested schedules, which will be redacted in any filings that might be made public in the coming week, but it’s obvious they contain “scandalous” details that either do not suit Porter’s claim that he has been unfairly defamed or are deemed legally inadmissible though nevertheless not something he would like made public. Many have suggested that Porter may have instigated defamation proceedings specifically to prevent this disputed information being made public, with new information having been uncovered in the weeks following his coming forward. But whether or not Porter did see that coming, he’s only added to the impression he created the day he launched proceedings: that he is unwilling to have the full detail of allegations against him exposed to the public, or tested in open court.

We don’t know yet whether the temporarily suppressed evidence will be struck out, with Justice Jagot telling the hearing the interim order was only about preventing the (potentially vexatious) information becoming public before she could determine the merits of Porter’s complaint. But there’s no doubt the former attorney-general – backed by some of the best defamation lawyers in the country, and a qualified lawyer himself – knows his way around a courtroom. Prime Minister Scott Morrison repeatedly insisted that no civil inquiry could be held into the allegations against Porter on account of the rule of law. The rules of law may mean that elements of the story will always remain unheard.

Read more:

https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/rachel-withers/2021/07/2021/1620361736/porter-s-complaint

A similar technique of shutting down possible information seemed to have also been used by AG Porter (representing a corrupt action by the Australian government)  against Witness K... who knows. Meanwhile, anything that can damage the ABC, will be well received by most of the Liberal (CONservative) boffins...

Read from top.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE.

A Federal Court judge has effectively paused hearings in Christian Porter’s defamation case against the ABC while the court decides an application to stop a high-profile Sydney barrister acting for him in the proceedings.

On Wednesday a friend of the woman who accused Mr Porter of rape filed an urgent application in the Federal Court seeking an order to restrain defamation barrister Sue Chrysanthou, SC, from acting for the federal Liberal minister on the basis of a potential conflict of interest.

Jo Dyer, who was a debater with the woman in the late 1980s, is seeking an order restraining Ms Chrysanthou from acting in the case on the basis that the defamation silk previously acted for her in a separate matter involving The Australian newspaper.

“The order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, and to preserve confidentiality and legal professional privilege,” Ms Dyer’s lawyers say in court documents.

On Friday Justice Tom Thawley set down Ms Dyer’s application for a three-day hearing starting on May 24.

Justice Jayne Jagot, who is presiding over the defamation proceedings only, raised the possibility on Friday that the defamation proceedings would need to be stayed, or temporarily halted, pending the resolution of that application.

Read more:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/barrister-in-porter-defamation-fight-may-need-to-be-quarantined-from-case-20210514-p57rwj.html

Read from top....

assange2

Federal minister Christian Porter has discontinued his defamation action against the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan, the broadcaster says.

“All parties have agreed to not pursue the matter any further,” the ABC said in a statement on Monday.

“No damages will be paid.

“The ABC stands by the importance of the article, which reported on matters of significant public interest, and the article remains online. ”

The February 26 article has since been updated with a statement confirming the “unnamed cabinet minister” subject to a woman’s rape allegation was Mr Porter but that the ABC “did not intend to suggest that Mr Porter had committed the criminal offences alleged”.

“The ABC did not contend that the serious accusations could be substantiated to the applicable legal standard – criminal or civil,” the editor’s note says.

“However, both parties accept that some readers misinterpreted the article as an accusation of guilt against Mr Porter. That reading, which was not intended by the ABC, is regretted.”

An ABC spokesman said the broadcaster had agreed to pay the costs of mediation with Mr Porter’s team, which was ordered last week.

In a lengthy statement after the decision emerged, Mr Porter blasted the ABC – describing Monday’s developments as a “humiliating backdown”.

“The ABC and Louise Milligan have been forced to say that the accusations in the article could not be proven to a civil standard or a criminal standard so the same people who were calling for some kind of civil hearing have now been forced to say that the accusations would not be proven to a civil standard,” he said.

“That is the point that they got to.

“They regret the outcome of that article. That is a humiliating backdown by the ABC.”

Mr Porter filed his claim for defamation on March 15, alleging the story was defamatory because it imputed he raped a 16-year-old girl in 1988 and that contributed to her taking her own life.

Milligan tweeted shortly after Monday’s decision was announced:

“I stand by my journalism & proud to work (Four Corners) & grateful to the ABC & our brilliant legal team for supporting public interest journalism.”

Mr Porter said he never believed the ABC would settle the case.

“I never thought that the ABC would settle. I never thought they would say they regret the outcome of the article. I never thought that they would concede that the accusations that were put in the article could never be proven, could not be proven to the criminal standard or the civil standard,” he said.

“I did not think, frankly, there was any chance of them making those types of statements to settle this matter.”

He also maintained he would run again in his marginal Perth seat at the next federal election.

“I am running at the next election, committed at my seat for the people I represent, absolutely,” he said.

Read more:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/05/31/christian-porter-defamation-action/

Read from top.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW ®´∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏¡¡¡¡!!!!

“Christian Porter’s claim to have no idea who funded his million-dollar legal case is an outrageous abuse of his office,” shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus QC said.

“The Australian people need to know who set this trust up, who funded it, how much they donated, and whether they expected to get anything in return for these donations.

“If Mr Porter genuinely doesn’t know who his donors are he shouldn’t accept their money.”

A spokesman for Mr Porter said his disclosure was “in accordance with the requirements of the register and consistent with previous members’ disclosure of circumstances where the costs of personal legal matters have been mitigated by contributions or reductions in fees”.

“No taxpayers’ funds were used in meeting the costs of the minister’s actions against the ABC and Milligan, which have now concluded,” the spokesman said.

READ MORE: https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2021/09/14/christian-porter-reveals-blind-trust-paid-part-of-his-legal-fees/

Quick questions: should someone give me money under such circumstances, wouldn't this be accounted as personal income? Or is the money given to Porter for his legal fees tax-free like "charity", or taxed like franking-credits, before being given out?... I never understood this "someone else paying for your dues"... But good luck to him... May he be defeated at the next election, not because of this case, but because of all the things he did before — including Robodebt and chasing "witness K"...

READ FROM TOP.

assangez

Federal minister Christian Porter's decision to accept mystery funds to pay personal legal fees has been described as a "shocking affront to transparency" by his former boss.

• Christian Porter has declared an unknown donor helped pay his legal fees through a blind trust
• Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull says Mr Porter's decision to accept the money flouts accountability
• The Treasurer says Mr Porter has followed all the rules in declaring the money

Malcolm Turnbull, who as prime minister appointed Mr Porter as his attorney-general, said he was staggered the minister used a blind trust to cover some of the costs he racked up in a defamation suit against the ABC.

The former attorney-general yesterday updated his register of members' interests to include the blind trust, and declared as a potential beneficiary of the 'Legal Services Trust' he had no access to information about its conduct or funding.

Mr Turnbull questioned how Mr Porter could accept the money in good faith.

"This flies in the face of every principle of transparency and accountability in public life," the former prime minister told the ABC.

"This is an absolute affront.

"I will be even more staggered if the Prime Minister allows this to stand — it is a shocking affront to transparency."

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-15/turnbull-says-christian-porter-blind-trust-outrageous/100462584

Read from top. Especially above comment: 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...

Scott Morrison is seeking advice about whether a decision by former attorney-general Christian Porter to accept mystery funds to pay part of his personal legal fees breached ministerial standards.

• Christian Porter has declared an unknown donor helped pay his legal fees through a blind trust
• A spokesman for Scott Morrison said he was getting advice about whether it breached guidelines
• Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull says Mr Porter's decision to accept the money flouts accountability

The former attorney-general yesterday updated his register of members' interests to include the blind trust, and declared as a potential beneficiary of the 'Legal Services Trust' he had no access to information about its conduct or funding.

In a statement, a spokesman for Mr Morrison said he was "taking this matter seriously".

"The Prime Minister … has discussed the matter with the Minister today," the spokesman said.

"The Prime Minister is seeking advice from his department on any implications for the Ministerial Standards and any actions the Minister must take to ensure that he meets the Standards."

The move has been criticised by the federal opposition, as well as former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull who described the decision as a "shocking affront to transparency".

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-15/scott-morrison-advice-christian-porter-legal-fee-standards/100462584

Read from top.

Let's hope that the slush fund is not "governmental", nor even coming from a secret settlement by the ABC... Seriously this issue is one million times more serious than Mick Young and his Paddington Bear... and Mick had to go...