If this is accurate, heads are going to roll:
Defence heads have ordered an investigation into claims departmental officials conducted covert inquiries into their minister Joel Fitzgibbon. The unnamed officials investigated the defence minister’s association with a Chinese-born Sydney businesswoman and whether it constituted a security risk. Defence force head Angus Houston and departmental secretary Nick Warner have ordered the inquiry, AAP has been told…
Former senior defence official Alan Behm said it was not standard procedure for a department to investigate its minister. Any such inquiry would have to be authorised through the prime minister’s office and be conducted through proper channels, he said. “Whenever you have a situation where a department appears to act unilaterally … investigating the affairs of its minister, then there is a total breakdown in trust.”
Whether we think it civilized behaviour or not, foreign intelligence agencies will attempt to gain access to stuff our government tries to keep secret; we return the favour. And it’s pretty standard operating procedure for intelligence agencies to attempt to gain information by using people with family ties to the country concerned. And, by definition, the Defence Minister is going to know all sorts of secret stuff other governments want to know. Given all of that, on the face of it it’s not unreasonable to look into whether a Defence Minister’s close friend is, wittingly or unwittingly, being used by a foreign government to obtain some of that information.
But – as well as the point that under the circumstances the PM’s office should surely have been informed, shouldn’t this have been a job primarily for ASIO and, perhaps, ASIS?
UPDATE: According to departmental secretary Nick Warner, neither he nor Angus Houston had any knowledge of the allegations. He has ordered an investigation into the alleged investigation. Oh, to be a fly on the wall at the Defence Department…
This is a very intriguing story with plenty of moves to come I guess. But I have to ask why the SMH never lists Ms Liu’s citizenship. She is described as a wealthy Chinese born woman with past financial ties to Beijing and elsewhere as a Sydney businesswoman. The inference that she might be a security risk through her friendship with Fitzgibbon, based on her ethnicity, ought to be balanced somewhere by stating whether or not she is an Australian citizen.
There’s a big issue here – the degree to which the Defence empire sees itself as a sort of permanent part of the state relatively immune from political direction and control.
I very much doubt that the Chinese will say “oh, she’s got Australian citizenship now so she won’t talk to us”. That part is the least of the story.
In a way I think this is great – abuse of powers by state agents is a real problem and it’s generally not until it starts affecting the PTB that it gets challenged. We seem to have reached that point here, yay!
Defence has always been a big problem for Australian Governments. It has always did its own thing and has been immune from any broad policy directions of various governments. Peter Costello wrote in his biography that when he first became the treasurer, Defence didnt even itemise its expenditure on its annual budget submission. And what they’ve done on Fitzgibbon is weird and totally unethical. Im not a fan of him and I reckon he stuffed up that SAS pay scandal but investigating him without his knowledge or anyone elses for that matter is just wrong.
Kim nailed it. This is most likely the military (and not regular Defence public servants) flexing its muscle in an obscene way. Also worth watching how the media handles this: they need to be careful to do proper investigative reporting and not simply make themselves part of the vendetta that seems to be being played out so far. Pieces like this trash do not inspire confidence:http://preview.tinyurl.com/cktf28
Maybe Brian Toohey should be asked for an article or comment. He was Lance Barnard (Deputy PM and Defence Minister) ‘s press secretary in the Whitlam Government and resigned after a few months when Defence flatly refused to have him present at a briefing without a defence/security clearance (that apparently went beyond the usual clearances). Barnard didn’t back him in the showdown.
It probably helped contribute to many Ministers and advisers having paranoia about the well-entrenched public service which hadn’t seen a Labor Government for 23 years. As Jamo points out, a lot of Defence was a law unto itself. Hostility to Labor was not necessarily so bad in the whole PS, but the impression might have been formed from the attitudes of Defence and security boffins.
At least this time around there does not seem to be the same mistrust.
Here go the opposition again. Fitzgibbon should be “sacked” because the defence department cracked into his computer without authorisation. They seem to have a knack for never, ever, getting it right.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25244269-5005961,00.html
Yes indeed. And ASIO know all about defying Ministers; though I don’t think Fitzgibbon has the guts to bum-rush the Defence HQ files in the style of Lionel Murphy.
Um, isn’t it the Defence Dept which is in the wrong and call me crazy, but it sure looks like they’ve got something to hide and by their actions fear Fitzgibbon could be the one to ferret it out?
joe2, spot on with your observation re the opposition. They get sillier and sillier every day.
I’m sure that I heard on an ABC Radio report that this so called ‘spying’ on the Minister actually took place well before the SAS pay issue reared its head. I can’t seem to find that anywhere else, though.
If that’s true, then that just makes Kerr’s article as referred to by Tim all the more rediculous.
Too right, Andos, Kerr has blown it. I heard Barrie Cassidy confirm that it was pre the pay issue stuff up. His story, below, makes no sense in that light.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/houserules/index.php/theaustralian/comments/a_lesson_in_etiquette_for_joel_fitzgibbon/
Any reports on who leaked that the investigation was happening in the first place?
Don Wigan
Wasn’t there a wider “problem” at the start of the first Whitlam Govt when many Ministers told ASIO they did not require their advisers to be vetted?
I agree with Robert M that such investigations should be the domain of ASIO or ASIS. And Ministers can’t be immune from investigation, if there’s some potential difficulty…..
This is a little reminiscent of the “fringe” elements in MI5 (apparently) investigating alleged links between PM Harold Wilson, and Soviet entities in the mid-60s. I suppose even a PM can’t be above suspicion, but it’s a tricky area to administer.
Was it a South Australian police head (back in the 1970s) who came into conflict with Premier Dunstan, and justified some secret activity by saying the police force’s ultimate loyalty was “to the Crown” rather than to the Premier? I think the Premier sacked him.
Let’s see, sexism, racism, xenophobia, sexual prurience.
As public figures and as private citizens cabinet ministers cultivate a wide range of contacts and connections. Who is going to decide which of these contacts and connections are worthy of scrutiny by the spooks?
Perhaps these DD gumshoes ought to fess up and admit that their profiling methods were devised by Pauline Hanson.
15 Katz Mar 26th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Once upon a time, in the era of the gentleman-only clubs, White Australia and so on, these ideological swear words might have given a thoughtful person cause for convern. But they have long ceased to hold their power to wound, at least for this little black duck.
All they do is show that the person who bandies them about is more concerned to put up a politically corrected front for politically connected business dealings, rtather than uphold any notion of civility.
Its fortunate for AUS that some people are prepared to confront the corrupt. Here is an example of a divorced middle-aged woman who confronted the Thought Police and won:
Must be that “racist…xenophobic…Pauline Hanson”, you say?
Wrong, it was Lowitja O’Donoghue
Your memory’s pretty good, Ambigulous. A lot of the advisers treated this ASIO security clearance thing as nonsense.
Dunstan did indeed sack the Police Commissioner Salisbury for not telling him the truth on certain security/special branch matters. Saiisbury’s justification, was as you mentioned, his owing of a ‘higher duty’ to the Crown.
Leading Advertiser journalist, Stuart Cockburn, who up until then had been fairly friendly to Dunstanian reforms (after a background of earlier being a press secretary to Menzies) took great umbrage at this event. Partly that was on the ground that Salisbury was a person of great integrity. Some other leading figures like Mark Oliphant joined him.
Dunstan’s view remained that accountability to the Minister obliged Salisbury to inform him, and deception could not be tolerated under the Westminster system. I’d agree with that view.
IIRC Dunstan only found out about the existence of the SA Police special branch in 1977—twelve years after he had first become attorney general. Or maybe it was only ten years.
That said, I hope they (Rudd & Combet most likely) handle this like Don did Salisbury, or like Hawke did the Ivanov affair. Lionel Murphy’s vanity raid on ASIO isn’t a good template…
ABC 2 also noted this morning that this predated the pay issue.
Combet was shifted from Defence to Climate Change (25 February 2009).
nickws
I saw an alleged quote from Minister Murphy (incidental to a brief description of Kerry Milte’s career). On the morning of the ASIO Ministerial Visit – who dare call it a “raid” or indeed a “Raid” – Lionel Murphy said to his adviser Kerry on arrival at ASIO HQ, “What have you f***ing got me into?”
Perhaps it was seeing the assembled Press persons that put the Minister off?
If there has been misconduct, then appropriate action should be taken.
However, the PRC are well known for having the ability to put in place long-term sleepers. I’d be interested to know exactly how DOD is meant to act if they think their Minister, who is privvy to everything he wants, is potentially compromised. Especially if they suspect others (PM&C) are also potentially compromised?
Now spying is OK in the Defence Department, what’s to stop other departments trying their hand at a bit of snooping. Perhaps they have already done so and we just need to wait for the next episode
Razor: you might have noticed that I’ve acknowledged that investigation of such matters might be necessary.
You might also address the point I made in the post – that counterintelligence is primarily the job of ASIO. Furthermore, if the head of the defence department felt that a minister had been compromised, he could get in to see the head of PM&C, and indeed Rudd himself, any time he picked up the phone.
Furthermore, any Prime Minister who refused to allow an investigation in such circumstances would be committing political suicide.
Yeah, my knowledge of the Murphy ‘raid’ is shaped by Alan Reid’s account, and Reid perhaps isn’t such a great source, what with his habit of desperately wanting to be a player.
But Murphy was not the person you’d want anywhere near a contoversy. Gough would have been spared a lot of trouble if someone else had been the leading Left senator from NSW.
(Hmmm, looks like Warren Snowdon would be the acting minister if Joel has to stand aside.)
I doubt whether this represents a security breach. This woman has been cultivating Fizgibbon for decades prior to his assumption to the Defence ministry.
More likely she just wants an inside track to the next re-zoning of land. Lot of urban military bases being sold off to developers these days.
Robert – what if the PM and Head of PM&C are already in bed with the Chicoms?
This whole story smells to high hell. There is nothing new in the Fitzgibbon family’s chinese friendships, going back years, and relevant party donations are on the public record.
Brandis and Turnbull are being utterly hysterical and in demanding the Minister’s resignation. Could there possibly be a Liberal Party plant somewhere in Defence, set to go off on a slow news day? Doh.
“Follow the money trail” – words that have proved their worth over time. Let’s not get caught up in all the innuendoes so much to the forefront of today’s “leaked” story. Allow me to come up with some innuendoes of my own…….Caste our minds back to various attempts by differing Governments and their Ministers to clean up the mysteries of the $22 billion Defence Procurement Budget, and while in this insidious frame of mind, think on the realities of the so-called SAS pay dispute which showed people being paid higher rates for qualifications they did not really have. Was it a scam or were they honest mistakes? How long had they been going on? It is also curious that The Age was the chosen vehicle for todays’s story.
Nickws, I’d be very surprised if Dunstan didn’t find out that the Special Branch existed well before 1977. We (by which I mean the psychedelic left) were aware of it (and some of its activities) in about 1968.
He may only have been made aware they had a file on him in 1977, otoh.
The really disturbing thing about this whole clusterfuck is that it appears to have been DSD who did the spying. Normally, the only spookish thing they should be getting up to is monitoring Indonesian military radio traffic.
Razor, what if you’re in bed with the Chicoms, and are using this forum to divide and destroy the Australian left in preparation for the invasion, eh?
But seriously, if even the PM can’t be trusted, the Defence chiefs would no doubt gather all the evidence they can, make sure it holds up … and then call a news conference, take a deep breath, mutter “alea jacta est”, and reveal all to the Australian people.
They would want to have their retirement plans in order beforehand.
They might also wish to advise the Governor-General in advance — unless she were in bed with the Chicoms too! (A rather crowded bed in that case.)
Given that this woman has known Fitzgibbon for the past 17 years it seems unlikely that she would have ever envisaged him one day being the Minister for Defense, so too is it unlikely that she’s going to rat on him or us given that for the most part he is probably not terribly well informed by his department. He and his department seem to have a not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing approach to each other.
Heads should roll over this and Fitzgibbon should be in a position to appoint heads of departments who he can trust. If neither side trusts the other its a completely disfunctional relationship. It is important in a democracy I would’ve thought, that the Defense force not be seen as a law unto itself.
Interesting that this story broke while Rudd was out of the country, even though that is or should be an outdated concern. I’m sure he is being kept informed. This smacks of nothing much more than a smear campaign. Penny Wong probably wouldn’t take shit like this.
It is interesting this broke after the PM had a hush hush meeting with no. 5 in the Chicom Politburo.
Intelligence agencies are notorious for seeking out weak spots to exploit people, and are pretty ruthless in how they do so. Emigres’ families are a fairly classic one.
Not saying that it has happened for one second, or the individual concerned would succumb to such pressure if it was placed on her. But it’s plausible that it could.
What if the Defense Department is infiltrated by Chicom agents using this issue to destablise civilian control of the military?
Or what if the Chinese themselves deliberately leaked this in order to have the issue investigated and dismissed as internal bastardry so that their agents of influence could remain in place undetected?
Or that ASIO leaked it in order to bolster their case for increased funding in the current rund of budget negotiations?
Or what if Rupert Murdoch (married to a young Chinese lady with an opaque past who by all accounts set her hat at him) had this secretly leaked to the Fairfax papers in the hope they’d beat it up, only to have it disapproved, thereby simultaneously discrediting a business rival and the possibility of the Defense Minister in thrall to another Dragon Lady?
Or that a rewakened Russian Bear planted the story in order to drive a wedge between Australia and China?
Or that India’s Research and Analysis Wing after a long liquid tiffin thought it’d be fun to leak the story and planted soon to be revealed evidence to suggest the Russkies are try to wedge Australia and China?
We’re through the looking glass here people. Canberra Rules, George, Canberra Rules.
What the hell indeed? I responded to a post by Jack Strocchi at 12. It does not matter that my response was not used. But now the item I responded to is not there. Is it the policy to remove previously available items and re-number without a word of advice.
At any rate we can certainly discount CIA involvement. They can’t even mount a decent centipede against their own leaders anymore let alone in some remote and dusty satrapy.
Not that this current hoo-ha has the makings of a decent centipede anyway, more’s the pity.
“I responded to a post by Jack Strocchi at 12.”
Which just proves you’re a multicultural wet subverting Australia’s strapping Anglo-Saxon moral fiber by daring to questioning the elaborate and empirically buttressed scaffolding of the Strocchiverss.
You’ll soon learn JohnL he’s been provided to the local blogosphere by a benevolent cosmos as another token all-weather crank (Autodidactic scientifical race theories model) with all his hot buttons invitingly displayed. Go on, have a poke. Much hilarity will ensure.
Exhibit A: A thread about possible Defense Department misbehaviour suddenly becomes a vehicle for having a go at ATSIC.
JohnL: it was removed by me. The renumbering was unfortunate, but it happens.
The not so secret meeting with Kevin Rudd REVEALED IN THE MEDIA was one of several meetings held by the Chinese delegation. One with Malcolm Turnbull, one with the Murdoch press, one with the ABC’s Mark Scott (and who knows how many others). All I know is that they did not ring me for a meeting and I make the best Regional Chinese food in Australia! Now that’s a conspiracy if ever I have heard of one.
37 Nabakov Mar 26th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
As usual you dont know what you are talking about. Although in this case you can be forgiven because the subject matter appears to have disappeared.
I am amused at you taking the ideological of multiculturalism at face value, with the charmingly quaint assumption that it is irrelevant to ethnic lobbies business dealings with state political apparats.
Or, since we’re into conspiracy theories Stephen Conroy did it through the Department of Internet Censhorship because he knew he was going on Q&A tonight, and he wanted fuckwits like Andrew Bolt to be preoccupied with this particular piece of garbage so he, Conroy, wouldn’t get too many questions about internet censorship. Setting red herrings being an effective means of creating a political distraction. Stranger things have happened.
Mind you, I’ll I’ll almost go into a state of shock if that’s what actually happens on Q&A tonight.
I’ve just turned Q & A off, Paul. It looked like it was going to be even more tedious than usual.
and now Fitzy has suddenly remembered two trips paid for by the ‘friend’ which he has somehow forgotten to declare. TWO!
Now what did Kevin do with that Code of Conduct for Ministers?
I was in Beijing last year at Zhao Deng Yu Road, Xi Cheng District and I have it on good authority that Nabakov is a long term blog plant loyal only to the Politburo for his employment, in other matters he reports to the Central Committee.
Under my terms of employment I cannot however divulge to you my role, if any, in all this.
“…have it on good authority that Nabakov is a long term blog plant loyal only to the Politburo for his employment, in other matters he reports to the Central Committee.”
Now it’s more disinformation planted to muddy the waters by the Irish Secret Service, otherwise known within the intelligence community as the Giardia (“The Green Bellies”).
The issue is that he initially lied about gifts. You can debate whether or not the gifts are significant but you can’t debate the fact that his initial response was to lie.
Barge: it’s not clear to me that his later admission about the plane tickets was prompted by the media or opposition making accusations.
An alternative explanation is that he simply forgot about them, and then something happened to jog his memory – for instance, perhaps his family, a staffer, or Ms Liu herself contacting him to remind him.
That’s sloppy on Fitzgibbon’s part, but not evidence of a deliberate coverup.
My comment above was not correct, see this story, which reports that Fairfax had asked his office about gifts of “Italian suits” earlier.
Not great.
Take a look in the rear view mirror, Fitzy.
That’s your career receding into the far distance.
Marxist theory of the state: confirmed. Yet again.
Spies, spies, CHINESE COMMUNIST SPIES! Burn them, burn them, I say.
This whole episode is getting ridiculous. The way its going I’ll have to stop eating at Chinese restaurants un case I get arrested for treason.
Word, Nabs.
Unless and until the precise nature of the original leak is identified, any and all of your scenarios (and more) are possible.
Fitzy’s fix may be the outcome of a routine DD shitfight or it may be something much more exotic.
PS, don’t expect to be told the truth even in the unlikely case that it is discovered.
To the guy going on about `sleepers’ being planted near aspiring ALP pols in the early nineties—step away from the Tom Clancy paperbacks, mate.
I just heard Joel say he hasn’t spoken to Rudd. That cannot be good. (Yesterday I mistakenly thought Combet was still parly sec for defence. I bet he’s regretting ever leaving that portfolio for climate change, this could have been his big opportunity to get into Cabinet after only 18 months in the Reps!)
Anyhoo, I think the other shoe is going to drop soon & we’ll learn that the good minister has
been getting his end inbeen pursuing Sino-Australian relations vigorously.If this becomes a sex scandal then this thread will overtake the current feminist one!
Incidentally, if he does go, that doesn’t in any way let Defence off the hook.
On this Blogocrats thread, somebody’s made an excellent suggestion for a replacement minister should one be required – John Faulkner.
In such circumstances, Defence might learn that sometimes it’s better the devil you know.
+one hundred and eleventy for Faulkner as defence minister. Broom, meet arse. It’s about 50 years overdue for that musty self serving department.
If Fitzgibbon were to need to resign over the non-declaration of these gifts it would be an abrupt change in ministerial standard requirements, after the Howard years. When there didn’t seem to be any. That said, he has goofed badly.
Of serious concern would be the defence departments sense of victory in seeing off a nosey parker, on the eve of a white paper, that presumably Fitzgibbon is in the best position to deliver. On balance and presuming there is nothing more to declare, I reckon he should be left to get on with the most difficult job around.
This whole thing is getting pretty ugly, incidentally, with Hockey and others, dog whistling ‘reds under the beds’ and Labor snuggling up in the blankets above.
Classic Bernard Boursicot stuff. Fitzgibbon has to go. Taking undisclosed favors from proxies of foreign powers is a death sentence for a defence minister.
Nickws: “But Murphy was not the person you’d want anywhere near a contoversy. Gough would have been spared a lot of trouble if someone else had been the leading Left senator from NSW.”
What do you think of Lionel Murphy on balance? Was he a semi-competent Minister? Just plain “trouble”? – as in ‘Now, what are you going to do for my little mate?’ There’s useful information in Jenny Hocking’s biography of Murphy
http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=//B55C1E841765ADBACA2571A700214917
but it’s somewhere between “admiring” and “hagiography” I think.
Interesting that after Murphy’s Ministerial Visit to ASIO, some angry officers started compiling all the dirt they could find on their Minister. I think they leaked some of it to sympathetic journalists. Similar to Mr Fitzgibbon’s predicament. Lionel Murphy was later shifted to the High Court of course.
Footnote: from Underbelly: The Gangland War by John Silvester & Andrew Rule (June 2008), p.357. “It was said when Murphy arrived [at ASIO Headquarters] he said to [Kerry Milte], ‘What the f*** have you got me into, Kerry?’ “
Faulkner for Defense? Damned good idea. He may not always know where the bodies are buried. Not always. But I trust him to follow the paper trails, find the invoices for hearses, shovels and caskets, and join the dots from there.
How is this not a coup attempt in miniature?
61 – because it is mere media specualtion at this point. If it is proven that the alleged activities did occur- then it is a serious matter. At the moment it is only a serious allegation yet to have any substance added to it.
“Faulkner for Defense?”
He’s a safe pair of hands and his integrity is beyond question. But Faulkner is from the Left faction. As defence minister he’d have access to all the defence secrets, the alliance secrets, the Pine Gap stuff – all of it. It would be revolutionary to have a Left minister for defence.
Craig: the problem with that thesis is that the “proxy of a foreign power” has not been established.
Liu appears to be a very wealthy woman who, like most “overseas Chinese”, toes the party line while in China to avoid jeopardizing the interests of themselves and that of their family.
Their private views on the regime are often another matter entirely, and in my experience depends a lot on their background in China. The sons and daughters of the rich and powerful (by Chinese standards) often think that the current lot are the best rulers China has ever had. Kids from the backblocks, often not nearly so complimentary.
Heh, if Lionel had cooperated with Gough on party reform as he did with Vince Gair on senate committee reform I’d have a higher opinion of him.
He was right about divorce reform. If he’d held one of the important economics portfolios he probably would have become one of the sacked ministers (if he wasn’t kicked upstairs first).
But the more I learn about Fitzgibbon’s predicament the less convinced I am that historical precedents mean anything with this story. Right now saying he (JF) has been framed is as baseless as saying his lady friend is a `proxy’ for teh Fu Manchu secret police…
This is the beginning of the dismissal. We’re watching history in the making here. The Australian demands nothing less.
“Craig: the problem with that thesis is that the “proxy of a foreign power” has not been established.”
Not only that, but Ms Helen Liu has been spoken of by ASIO, as someone that they have no information on that “would have given rise to any security concern”.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25249910-601,00.html
Still, I would be surprised if that information would be sufficient to contain the imaginative right from further scare mongering.
Robert Merkel says:
I doubt that Ms Lui is a “spy” in any meaningful sense. This scandal sound more like a clash over national differences in business and political cultures – lets celebrate diverstiy! Mixed in with another instance of an ambitious NSW ALP politician thinking of his post-political career rather than anything more sinister.
The CCP is basically the Board of Directors for PRC Inc, which is why the mixture of business and politics is not regarded as exceptional from her perspective. The Age reports her connections to PRC Party Bosses:
Now that business people are allowed to join the Party it only seems fair that they keep the Party abreast of business developments overseas. According to the Age Ms Lui is a faithful Party member in that respect:
She seems to have cultivated a pretty cosy relationship to Fitzgibbon, what with the provision of all these gifts, dinners and accommodation. Now it turns out that Fitzgibbon has had a couple of junkets at her expense. The Age reports:
This may be an innocuous enough by Shanghai standards. But it probably raises the hackles of the professional paranoids in DoD.
But their connection is probably more institutional than individual. I’d be looking at Fitzgibbon’s faction in the NSW ALP as they seem to have benefitted more the than Fitzgibbon. The Age report follows the money trail:
We all know that the NSW ALP has a long and proud history of disinterested cooperation with Asian property developers to further the interests of citizens. Who can forget the brilliant work done by La Ki-shing and Bob Carr in affording Syndey motorists cheap and easy access around the inner precincts.
Long live the Peoples Republic of the NSW ALP Right!
Nickws
When I said that ASIO officers went off looking for dirt on their Minister Murphy, I wasn’t assuming that they found nothing of substance. So I wouldn’t say they were necessarily “framing” him in the sense of using baseless or unimportant items. I simply don’t know if he was as shady as some of them seemed to believe he was.
I was hoping you might shed some light. The huge efforts Gough made in ALP party reform seemed to win allies in Victoria (Button et al) and SA (?Cameron?). Victorian non-totalitarian ALP members perhaps had a particular motivation, in wanting to reduce the influence of their unsavoury and dictatorial State hierarchy.
Lionel Murphy certainly pushed through some reforms that have stood the test of time. Was he as sloppy as Cairns though? Cherchez les femmes.
“Long live the Peoples Republic of the NSW ALP Right!”
Except I think (and I may be wrong) JL is of the NSW Left and a Gillard supporter. Which sets off a whole new set of conspiracy theories.
Ambigulous, I’m no expert on the qualities of the Whitlam Cabinet (and Paul Kelly is?), but I’d go with the notion that Murphy was neither incompetent nor lazy. Just radical and abrasive.
I guess not enough has been written about the Whitlam ministers who didn’t crash and burn, with the exception of Hayden and McClelland and the fathers of the two later ALP leaders. But I think I was right about Dunstan’s example in SA being superior to what Murphy tried to do with ASIO and their shadowy Balkan neofascists—it’s the difference between someone who inspires confidence in those around him by acting like a rule-of-law traditionalist and someone who is more into playing backroom games.
Anyway at 65 when I raised the spectre of a frame-job I wasn’t thinking of Murphy. And I don’t think anyone here has a particular historical example to draw on, just some good old-fashioned Leftwing dread.
That should be JF and a quick google reveals he is indeed a righty and one of a small group of NSW right MPs who supported Rudd over Beazley. My mistake and back to the original conspiracy theories.
Murphy’s stoush with ASIO was over the issue of national sovereignty. ASIO saw itself as a kind of secret government owing its first allegiance to the “western world” expressed in the UKUSA Agreement.
ASIO perceived Labor government as Communist fellow travellers, or at best naive fools.
Murphy’s Melbourne raid was necessary to demonstrate to the spooks who was actually in charge and who paid for their false noses, trench coats, and invisible ink.
Later on in the same decade the Church Committee hoiked the US intelligence community briefly into the critical light of democratic scrutiny.
Murphy’s stoush with ASIO was over the issue of national sovereignty. ASIO saw itself as a kind of secret government owing its first allegiance to the “western world” expressed in the UKUSA Agreement.
ASIO perceived Labor government as Communist fellow travellers, or at best naive fools.
Murphy’s Melbourne raid was necessary to demonstrate to the spooks who was actually in charge and who paid for their false noses, trench coats, and invisible ink.
Later on in the same decade the Church Committee hoiked the US intelligence community briefly into the critical light of democratic scrutiny.
Unless the Funky Gibbon has forgotten to mention Something Else, I’d say his position is *quite* safe. He is now the obvious choice to investigate DoD with extreme impartiality and thoroughness.
I am pretty sure that most of the DoD staff have never had a rough Pap smear — ooh look, here comes an angry man with a speculum!
“but I’d go with the notion that Murphy was neither incompetent nor lazy. Just radical and abrasive.” 71 Nickws
Pretty well spot on. It was remarkable the relentless rage he generated among the political and legal establishments. Right to his death he was pursued. It never seemed to stop him from pushing ahead. He was arguably even more “Crash Through or Crash” than Gough himself.
That said, his reforms have stood up pretty well, and he was right about Barwick and the Dismissal.
To return to topic, if Joel is forced to go, I’d love the poetic justice of Faulkner taking over. THEN those boffins would know what a serious investigation was all about.
This centipede could have real legs. Psst, Hey Fitzy, take a gander at this… Fairfax reports today:
He also backed away from his recent sharp criticism of his department.
Several weeks ago he told the Herald that his department had at times been incompetent and had nuanced the information it gave him.
But today he said the criticism “wasn’t intended to be a reflection on the senior leadership of the defence organisation”.
The suits and the plane trips may have just been a shot across the bow.
My guess is that Senator Faulkner, my favourite polly evah, is singing his swan song with administrative reform, aka cleaning out the stables, and is looking to retire next election, so unlikely he would take Defence (who, at the end of their career, would want Defence?). He has a book to write.
Young Joel Fitzgibbon is not yet completely dusted. His failures to declare were in 2002 and 2005 when in opposition, and he is in the middle of delivering a Defence Reform White Paper, which has already apparently so upset some elements in his Dept, they would risk deeply unethical and illegal conduct and dismissal, to destabilise him. Rudd will forgive Joel for now. And that takes a big man, focussed on the big picture, given the mess this made of his pressers in NY. Howard would have been swiftly vengeful by contrast.
(I cannot believe this Defence story is over, unless our media is really as hopelessly talentless and/or compromised as it appeared this week. The Liberal Party has been grinding its collective teeth over the friendly and dignified reception Rudd has been getting in the US, and would have done anything to spoil it through a well-timed news scandal. They almost succeeeded. I find it interesting that Nick Warner keeps repeating that there is no evidence within Defence (and he is an honourable man). So who knew what and when? Remember the Liberal Party Dirt Unit during the Howard years? Bet they have still got that dirt file, and misdirection is easy with a gullible media. Anyway, that’s my Giant Right Wing Conspiracy for today.)
I reckon the Funky Gibbon is safe until the next ministerial reshuffle, perhaps around the time of the budget in May, when some new government directions are on the cards. Rudd has a very powerful and talented second row, ready to move up and take the wheel. Maybe Joel will lose his place then, depending on how his reforms are received.
Crikey was yesterday calling yesterday for a tough guy to take over in Defence to knock some heads together. I think they were talking about Julia Gillard.
And did I hear Malcolm Turnbull with his finger hovering just above the self-destruct button yesterday, accusing the Prime Minister of favouring China’s interests above Australia’s? That treason, Malcolm.
The next Parliamentary sitting is the Budget session in May. Somehow I can’t see the Coalition getting much traction with voters over attacks on Fitzgibbon for failing to declare trips to China in 2002 and 2005. But I think Labor will be delighted if they continue down this path.
I’m with JohnL – these chattering class scandals are a dime a dozen between elections – and are nothing but filler
Trouble is, given the idiocy of our MSM this China garbage could take off. Its clear the Opposition thinks they might have found a chink in Labor’s armour. Of course, they haven’t. Or, at least, this isn’t it. Unfortunately, I’m a little concerned not enough of the electorate will see through this new Reds under the Bed Scare. Guess only time will tell.
On Insiders Gillard said she believes that Fitzgibbon forgetting that Liu paid for two all expenses trips to China was an innocent mistake. Just how many free overseas trips do these politicians get that they’d forget something like that?
Plenty probably. The problem is that there is no travel budget when in opposition, but foreign policy development, and making contacts overseas, must continue (at least theoretically).
Perhaps part of Faulkner’s admin reforms should include such an opposition travel budget, so that politicians stop stuffing up their declarations.
But then perhaps its a political minefield that the Government would rather leave alone – for payback when in opposition again.
And so it goes…
Paul Burns @ 82,
Paul, I wouldn’t worry, the only people who think like that these days are a bit on the fringe (see ABC TV’s Insiders couch from this morning for the perfect example).
Hawkie put that crap to rest years ago with his quip about there not being enough space down there for communists because that’s where people had all there money stashed (what utter, scary foresight!).
Anyway, Glenn Milne is making a suspicious amount of sense:
I think we’ve found the Dwarf’s broken clock setting. Sad to see Grattan in yesterday’s Age say the exact opposite, or even worse—that if Fitzy isn’t sacked then Rudd’s whole agenda is delegitimised.
(I’m happy to admit I was wrong the other day to say this would turn into a sex scandal. If there’d been any hanky panky it would have come out by now.)
[HTML TAGGING FIXED]
A little way back several commenters made rude remarks or pooh-poohed my argument (initially deleted and subsequently restored, that the combination of Sydney property developers and business cultures with the NSW ALP machine might not be the best mix for propriety in government.
Previously argued, Fitzgibbon’s motivation is nest-feathering not betraying his country:
According to the Canberra Times, it looks like Fitzgibbon is guilty of nothing worse than looking after the family business:
Call me an embittered cynic but this sounds like “another instance of an ambitious NSW ALP politician thinking of his post-political career”.
Previously argued, Ms Luis motivation, like that of her ruling Party, is making money off AUS not stealing secrets from AUS:
And right on cue again, a story appears in The Age reports a highly credible Chinese sourse confirming that Ms Luis main motivation was improving her economic prosperity not the PRC’s national security:
Call me a bigoted crank, but this sounds like “a clash over national differences in…the mixture of business and politics”.
Today’s News Ltd has an article containing reports of further examples of Asian influence in Australia’s politics, including the obligatory reference to a metro property developer:
Its reassuring to know that so many wealthy foreign property developers seem to be developing a disinterested and patriotic involvement in our major political parties.
“Just how many free overseas trips do these politicians get that they’d forget something like that?”
.
Free ,first class trip on Christmas Day leaving the family behind but accompanied by Ms Lui – yea ,I’d forget that too.
.
Just don’t forget Mr Howard , or poor old Lionel or any other distraction from the compromised minister who lies to the Australian public. Oh excuse me , he forgot.
“Just how many free overseas trips do these politicians get that they’d forget something like that?”
“ALMOST one in four federal MPs have accepted free overseas travel worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign governments, private companies and lobby groups in just 16 months since the last election.”….”The Age”
http://www.theage.com.au/national/mps-hooked-on-chinese-junkets-20090328-9eiy.html
These figures only represent the trips pollies declared in a very short, recent, period of time. When they are running up frequent flyer points like that, regularly, it would be a good guess that trips are undeclared quite often.
Not that it is an excuse; more that something should be done about the whole unseemly matter. It sounds like a mighty lot of them are placing themselves in a possibly compromised position whether they declare these trips or not.
joe2 @ 88 – Gifts like that would not be something that would be acceptable for public servants to accept (or even by many in private companies these days) and I think they should be banned. Perhaps an opposition travel budget
could be based on how much the government spends.
This is in the same league as the Hanson photos.
I obviously agree, Chris@89.
Xenophon has come up with a lighter proposal of a 60 days declaration limit of travel “gifts” and public website exposure.
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/declare-all-sponsored-travel-xenophon-20090330-9fvg.html
I cannot see why they would need such a long period to get their act together to notify the parliament. The website idea has merit, if they could get it up and running without spending millions to establish and maintain it. It would make for some interesting reading and definitely get them pollies thinking, a little harder, about what they grab from business and interest groups.
Nabakov [way back at 34]:
Thought-provoking possibilities you’ve raised there. Keep up the good work.
Everyone:
1. “Gentlemen do not read other gentlemen’s emails” [well, sort of]. Why has there been so little mention of the possibility that a few enthusiastic Defence wallahs might have been doing a wee bit of extramural prying? There’s at least one precedent from nearly 30 years ago when war veterans injured by chemical agents were given unfavourable attention for political purposes; chances are that there have been other instances of unofficial extramural prying too.
2. So the Chinese might have been trying to gain favourable influence with an official of a foreign government.
Whooppee-duck! That’s real news!
They’ve only been doing that sort of thing for the last three-and-a-half thousand years or so.
Now if the Chinese had suddenly decided to abandon eating with chopsticks, stop making lots of noise on the Lunar New Year and cease trying to influence foreign officials …. that would be news! Geeez
Another day gone – still no evidence of the alleged DOD snooping has been produced.
It is unfortunate that departments can’t sue newspapers.
Certainly Departments can sue newspapers, Razor, they can sue whoever they please. Litigation and defence of the same is core business for teams of lawyers in every large public service Department.
I’m with you, technically at least—if there’s nothing to the allegations, c’arn DOD’s silks. If there’s nothing to the allegations. If.
Regardless of whatever ins and outs do emerge from this, Shanghai Joel needs to be moved on. The relationship between him and DoD is now too poisoned to work for the long term.
I throughly second other suggestions here that Senator Faulkner go through DoD like a dose of salts as his final task in public life. The only possible Defence Minister since Robert Ray you could imagine decking a recalcitrant member of the general staff.
Also this thread now sports some vintage Strocchiana where he can’t tell the difference between a quote and a comment about the quote. As usual only he knows what he is talking about.