Letters to the Editor, FinReview 1st December 1995 (Page 30)
Revelations that the West Australian leader, James McGinty, warned Keating last May that Carmen Lawrence’s account of events surrounding the presentation of the Easton petition to Parliament in November 1992 would not be supported by her former Cabinet colleagues, have now been acknowledged by the Prime Minister. This adds a new and very serious dimension to the question - Who should bear the costs of Lawrence’s court actions?
Commonsense tells us McGinty was warning Keating that Lawrence’s position was impossible and that he and other West Australian Labor figures would not commit perjury to save her political hide.
Keating therefore, had a prudential duty to consider Lawrence’s dubious background and question her further. Instead, it appears that rather than admit an error of judgement, Keating embarked on a dishonest and dangerous course; that is, to improperly use taxpayer funds to finance the Lawrence legal challenges through the courts. This also raises the question - Did Keating tell his Ministry about McGinty’s warning? If not, why not?
It appears from Gareth Evans’ evasive answer in the Senate last week that he may not have done so, therefore Keating must bear full responsibility for what must rank as one of the most reprehensible of political acts - that of misleading his Cabinet.
On the other hand, if such a warning was given and ignored, we are confronted with the fact that the entire Cabinet conspired to conceal from the public the fact that one of their number might have lied to them, the Australian public and the West Australian Parliament.
The puerile explanation, “the possibility of differing recollections over time’ - falls to the ground when it is measured against Lawrence’s very positive recollections when she gave a clear denial of knowledge of the Easton petition’s contents only a matter of days after the November 2 Cabinet meeting, at which it was later alleged and later confirmed by eight ex-ministers that she had discussed the petition.
Hoisted on his own petard, Keating hopes to escape his nemesis by mounting a cowardly, dishonest and vitriolic attack on the character and reputation of Kenneth Marks, an honourable and respected jurist whose only offence seems to be that, unlike Keating, he believes the truth to be important. Keating’s moral and ethical fitness for office is now open to legitimate questioning. We have herein a scandal comparable to, if not worse than, the infamous Nixon/Watergate affair.
The real tragedy is that, so far, Australia has yet to produce journalists dedicated to getting the truth, and the courage and the determination to expose corruption in high places.
Charles J Connelly
Ferny Grove, Qld