Chief Justice exposes CCC Humbug

Am I A criminal? I haven't a clue

The Desert Rat scratched his head as he asked himself that question. McGinty and Carpenter must have moral insight which few of us comprehend, when we examine the carryings-on of their government and their Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC).

The charging of witnesses giving evidence to the CCC inquiry into Smith’s Beach, in respect of minor matters of recall, is sinister. No criminal or corrupt conduct was found and much taxpayer’s money has been wasted already. Peoples’ businesses and careers have been destroyed and they have been left with hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal bills. For what benefit the Desert Rat asks?

The duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to prosecute a charge if there is sufficient evidence to gain a conviction and it is in the public interest to proceed. The relentless pursuit of Burke and Grill by the government and the CCC goes beyond the test; is it in the public interest?

It seems to the Desert Rat that the CCC’s harassment and hounding of Burke and Grill, shows the McGinty-Carpenter Government's open contempt for the idea that the law defines the scope of the Government's interest in you; that you can be on the wrong side of the Government only by being on the wrong side of the law.

If Burke and Grill have committed a crime, arrest them; otherwise, leave them alone.

A recent case involving lobbying was heard in the Tasmanian Supreme Court by their Chief Justice. The decision and his sentencing comments outline clearly what the Desert Rat had thought and previously written in an article for ”The West Australian” which was not published.

The case involved the recently resigned Deputy Premier Bryan Green who still faces a retrial on corruption charges. John White a former Labor Health Minister, now a businessman, lobbied the Minister to extend his company’s contract just before the last election. Throughout the negotiating process Mr White lobbied for a secure contract for his business which provided him with a very substantial income. The agreement gave Mr White’s company a monopoly for three years.

The Chief Justice said, “He (White) lobbied (Deputy Premier) Mr Green's advisors and he lobbied Mr Green himself. He lobbied Mr Price, then Secretary of the Labor Party. It is likely that his lobbying called in aid the fact that he was a former Minister in a Labor Government, and a member of the Labor Party in the same faction as Mr Green. It is also likely that because of these facts, Mr White expected that the Minister would look upon his request favourably. He ultimately did just that, but there was nothing unlawful about Mr White lobbying whomever he chose to lobby and putting such arguments as he thought appropriate to support his case.”

The Chief Justice continued, “Mr White refused to sign a version of the agreement that was to his satisfaction in all respect bar one. It did not provide that the Minister would not exercise his discretion to appoint a competitor to his company. He was entitled to take that action and that point of view. Mr White continued to lobby vigorously for his point of view. In the end, very shortly before the announcement of the election and upon the instructions of Mr Green, a clause in these terms was inserted into the agreement.”

The Chief Justice said, “I find that financial self-interest was Mr White's principal motivation. ...... At the outset it is necessary to bear in mind that Mr White was entitled to lobby and argue for the financial security that he wanted. Next, it is important to note that the Parliament entrusted the Minister with the power to authorise or not authorise another accrediting body (contractor), not Mr White, and without the co-operation of the Minister, Mr White could not have actually interfered with the free exercise of that discretion. He did not force the Minister to sign the agreement. It was for the Minister to say no to Mr White's proposal, but he chose not to do so.”

This case, in the Desert Rat’s view, goes to the heart of lobbying and shows the sham of this case and the “show trials”. In a democracy anyone has the right to lobby the Government. It is a serious offence to bribe, force or intimidate a Minister or government officer.

The Chief Justice continued, "At the end of any lobbying, a minister remains completely free to exercise his or her duty or authority in whatever manner he or she thinks appropriate."

Burke and Grill only lobbied for clients, not for a government contract for their own business, as was this case. Is there any suggestion that Burke or Grill ever bribed, intimidated or threatened a Minister?

What this case shows is that competent Ministers and members of Parliament are needed. The irony is: the less capable these public officers are, the more need for lobbyists.

Stop wasting our time and taxpayer’s money on the political witch hunt.