Oz Politics Blog

Don’t you just hate it when commentators add the word ‘gate’ (as in Watergate) to the end of a word to connote a political crisis. Even some in the blogsphere have used this cheapie. From my reading of the tea leaves we are a long way off a political crisis.

On Friday, Greg McGuire (the so called intermediary) made his statement. He sided with John Anderson and Sandy Macdonald against Tony Windsor. This was not surprising. If he had sided with Windsor, McGuire would have admitted his part in a bribery scandal. The worst case scenario for such an admission would be two years gaol and a $5000 fine. With these disincentives, we cannot take McGuire’s word as conclusive proof. He may well be telling the truth (I do not know); but if the scandal was on, he sure has an incentive to lie.

In my view, the jury of public opinion should still be out. Calls for Windsor to apologise to Anderson are premature. Critically, we have not heard from the two witnesses who were with Windsor when McGuire spoke to him. However, the police have heard them. It will be enlightening to see what the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions recommend when they finish their investigations.

While the jury might be out, it can be instructive to consider the possible explanations for the events as we know them.

I find it hard to believe that Windsor has completely concocted his story. Why would he lie to Parliament? If we accept Windsor’s story as a reasonably accurate account of a conversation with McGuire, I can think of three possible scenarios to explain the event.

My first scenario: it is simply as Windsor has called it. Anderson and Macdonald have been scheming to rid themselves of Windsor and have the seat of New England return to the National Party fold. They decided to offer Windsor a diplomatic posting. It would need to be somewhere nice and inconsequential, perhaps Ireland, Denmark or Canada. To protect themselves, they found a hapless intermediary: enter Greg McGuire.

The second scenario is the rhetorical question misinterpreted for a direct request. There can be no doubt that Anderson and Macdonald coveted the seat of New England for the National Party. It is entirely possible they spoke their frustrations, “What can we do to be rid of Windsor?” It is also possible that McGuire acted on such vague rhetorical statements of frustration as if they where more substantial direct requests.

The parallel from history is Henry II, who in 1170 was fed up with the actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket. Henry allegedly shouted in rage at his nobles, “What sluggards, what cowards have I brought up in my court, who care nothing for their allegiance to their lord. Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” Soon after, four of Henry’s knights went to Canterbury with a band of armed men and murdered Becket.

The third scenario is that the conversation between McGuire and Windsor occurred much as Windsor recalled, but that McGuire was lying about being an emissary of Anderson and Macdonald. It was McGuire who wanted Windsor to resign and he embellished the request to give it gravitas.

Of these three options I find the first the least plausible. While I cannot rule out this scenario, I do not think Anderson is by nature corrupt. After all, he has mused about leaving the Parliament to become an Anglican priest. Yet, I do not have enough information to form a view as to which of my second and third scenarios is the better explanation (or indeed, if there is some other scenario I have not considered).

Having considered the possible explanations, its time to consider the lessons in this story.

Windsor has been the most damaged by the story to date. I am not surprised. His statements have shown a distinct lack of political judgement. He went out on a limb without ensuring the key witness in his story would back him up. Without backup, this story was always going to end in a version of “he said” versus “she said”. This is a political loser. While you might be outraged by duplicity (as you see it), if you haven’t got the witnesses lined up before you go public, it could easily backfire. Unfortunately, in the real world, truth and justice are separable.

Some have suggested that Windsor’s statements were clever in another context. The real target was not Anderson and Macdonald, but the NSW parliamentary seat of Dubbo, which had a by-election on the weekend. The by-election contest was between the National Party and an independent candidate. As it happens, the independent won. The conspiracy theorists would assert that it was helped with a little mud being thrown by Windsor.

Given the choice between conspiracy theory and a cock-up theory, I will almost always chose cock-up before conspiracy. My suspicion is that Windsor allowed his heart to over-rule his head. His enmity and loathing for Anderson, Macdonald and all things National Party fooled his better judgement. He launched into a political challenge without holding the trump card. He breached the maxim: You don’t start a process unless you know where it will end.

Although we still do not know who is lying, Windsor’s bad judgement has left him with some of the egg on his face (at least for the moment).