Comments on: Psst . . . wanna buy time with the Minister?

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:34:28 +0000

“The most offensive money scheme is the practice of selling ministers’ time.”

I don’t think this is right. Stopping this would not clean things up; it would just narrow those with access to Ministers to those with good political connections and a specific matter to discuss. Ministerial advisers often do not like functions because they cannot control access to the boss; restricting functions would increase the power of these unelected officials.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:39:30 +0000

Ken - I do think it is catching up with the NSW ALP. I think it would have already caught up with it if the NSW Coalition was electable. Same dynamic that faced the Labor Opposition Federally. Until they got a safe pair of hands they were going no-where. I’d be very surprised if a properly united and organised and led Coalition couldn’t take them out easily. Privatisation of the electricity system is an example - not the act itself, just the fact that it’s the opposite of the platform they took to the election. . . .

By: Ken Parish

Ken Parish — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:30:41 +0000

Then again, one could certainly understand anyone concluding that people get the governments they deserve if, despite knowing all that we do about Carr, Iemma etc, we keep electing them. So why go any further than pointing out what should be obvious and see if it somehow strikes a chord? Even the cumulative effect of the Howard government’s behaviour caught up with it in the end, though it sometimes seemed that it never would. It’s just that I see little sign of that happening to the NSW Labor government at present, even though I reckon they deserve political oblivion even more richly than Howard et al.

By: Ken Parish

Ken Parish — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:23:45 +0000

I think there’s a need to spell out the dynamics and history to put on some sort of pressure, for exactly the reasons I’ve explained. I think Tony would get a lot more latitude than most people because of his justified stature and reputation. I guess it’s a matter of whether he thinks this is an issue important enough to push the envelope on. In my view it certainly is. On issues involving as much political self-interest as this one, careful, prudent, balanced analysis may not be enough, especially when the reaction of most people to having low-key political corruption pointed out is the old “is the pope a catholic?” response.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:22:34 +0000

He could grow a beard, look into the camera and say “Shame, Shame, Shame”.

Not sure of the point of it.

By: SJ

SJ — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:09:58 +0000

If Tony Harris really cares about this stuff (as I’m sure he does), why doesn’t he take a risk of being labelled partial, and run this line much more strongly and clearly in a future column? Otherwise nothing will ever change.

Jesus, Ken, how strong do you want it, and how much “strength” do you think the AFR would tolerate?

I mean, you could write all the stern letters you want to the AFR and you surely know they just won’t get published.

By: Ken Parish

Ken Parish — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:36:56 +0000

The whole thing about ICAC and the definition of corruption has a long political and legal history. Nick Greiner was the principal victim of an overly wide definition and a naive interpretation of “corruption” in the early ICAC legislation. He got zapped for “corruption” consisting of doing no more than offering a London sinecure to an inept Police Minister who needed to be gotten rid of for everyone’s good.

Imagine if Greiner (for whom I confess I have a high regard) had remained in office and in charge of the Liberal Party for a while longer. NSW may never have experienced the small-c corrupting influence of Bob Carr’s cynical, PR-driven, minimal performance, deals-for-mates style of government, and its tawdry aftermath in Wollongong. Nor might NSW have ended up having little choice but to tolerate the devil it knows because the Libs have been taken over by the religious far right.

I can more or less understand ICAC taking a cautious approach to labelling as “corrupt” behaviour which, however appalling, has for a long time been regarded by both parties as just part of the political game. If ICAC were to move without either party evincing a willingness to back its stance and condemn “cash for access”, it would simply be offering itself up as a sacrifice whichever party was in power. Then we’d all be worse off, because one of the few checks against the longstanding corrupt ethos that has always surrounded NSW politics would be further emasculated.

In that regard I have two questions:

(1) If Barry O’Farrell really does have the sort of nouse that will be needed for the Coalition to find a way back in NSW, even against sub-mediocre performers like Iemma, why doesn’t he grasp the nettle and condemn “cash for access” and thereby give ICAC the cover it needs to enforce its own legislation?

(2) If Tony Harris really cares about this stuff (as I’m sure he does), why doesn’t he take a risk of being labelled partial, and run this line much more strongly and clearly in a future column? Otherwise nothing will ever change.

By: James Farrell

James Farrell — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:35:16 +0000

I Tony put this case to Deborah Cameron on the radio. The absence of ifs and buts makes it very persuasive.

By: SJ

SJ — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:15:14 +0000

That was a very good column, Tony. We’re lucky to have the ICAC in NSW. The AWB thing would probably have turned out quite differently if there was an equivalent fed body.