Oz Politics Blog

In my last post I said,

The thing I like about such huge claims under parliamentary privilege is that whatever happens, someone will be left with egg on their face. Who will it be? Windsor, Anderson or McGuire? One of them must be lying. So far John Anderson and Sandy Macdonald have categorically denied Tony Windsor’s allegations.

But I failed to mention there is no guarantee the egg will land on the lying face(s). Who is telling the truth and who will be the fall guy are two different questions. While we like to think the guilty get punished, there are no guarantees. Real life is not a fairy tale.

So far, most people seem to be opting for the easy solution to this story: Either John Anderson and Sandy Macdonald are lying or Tony Windsor is lying. The web based opinion polls favour Tony over Andy and Sandy [for example, here].

The typical conspiracy theory is that Andy and Sandy made the inducement and then bought the silence of their intermediary with a $6 million government grant. Some cynical adherents to this theory expect Andy and Sandy to get off. Either the Tamworth businessman, Greg McGuire, or Windsor will be left with their reputations in tatters. While this is a possible construction of events, I am not convinced.

If you accept the Simon Crean hypothesis — that both Anderson and Windsor are men of character (notwithstanding their mutual loathing of each other) — then McGuire is the weak link in this story. One possible scenario under this thesis is that McGuire was guilty of an overly fertile imagination and an inflated sense of self importance and Windsor was his unintended victim.

The robustness of today’s anticipated statement from McGuire will go some way to answering these questions. A compelling statement will shift the focus to either Andy and Sandy or Tony. A weak one will leave Greg with the egg.

In a few hours we will see whether the last twenty-four hours holed up on his property with friends and lawyers has produced for McGuire both a plausible story and a compelling presentation.

Hands up those who can remember the Metherell-Greiner affair.

In 1992, the then New South Wales Premier Nick Greiner was forced from office when the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) found him corrupt for offering former education minister Dr Terry Metherell a highly paid public service job in return for resigning from his safe Liberal seat. (Okay, the Court of Appeal eventually rejected ICAC’s corruption findings against Greiner).

Last night the money shot for the remake was video-taped in the House of Representatives. It was a powerful scene. With much gravitas, the independent member for New England, Tony Windsor, claimed that the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, offered him a bribe not to run for re-election. The key sound bites from his soliloquy were,

“I would like to place on record, Mr Speaker, an account of a meeting that took place on the 19th of May 2004 at 10.30am at the office of Tamworth businessman, Mr Greg Maguire, in the Powerhouse Motorcycle Museum.

“The meeting was attended by Mr Maguire, Mr Stephen Hall, my campaign co-chairman, Miss Helen Tickle, my campaign secretary, and myself.

“Mr Maguire indicated that he had spent four to five hours the night before in the company of the Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson and the National Party Senator Sandy Macdonald and a black haired woman whose name he did not recall.

“Mr Anderson asked Mr Maguire to meet with me and give me some messages.

“Mr Maguire made a number of points regarding the previous night’s meeting.

“John Anderson was paranoid about me and the demise of the Nationals and the rise of independents.

“Mr Anderson and Senator Macdonald asked Mr Maguire what it would take to get me not to stand for re-election and indicated that if there could be another career for me outside politics such as a diplomatic post or trade appointment if I didn’t stand for the seat of New England.’

“Senator Macdonald said: `offer him whatever it takes, we can deliver’.

“One of them also said, and I quote, `the government makes about 500 political appointments, it can be done’.”

Whoa! That is a massive (albeit untested) claim. If true, it would be a serious breach of section 326 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918:

Bribery

(1) A person shall not ask for, receive or obtain, or offer or agree to ask for, or receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind, whether for the same or any other person, on an understanding that:

1. any vote of the first-mentioned person;
2. any candidature of the first-mentioned person;
3. any support of, or opposition to, a candidate, a group of candidates or a political party by the first-mentioned person;
4. the doing of any act or thing by the first-mentioned person the purpose of which is, or the effect of which is likely to be, to influence the preferences set out in the vote of an elector; or
5. the order in which the names of candidates nominated for election to the Senate whose names are included in a group in accordance with section 168 appear on a ballot paper;

will, in any manner, be influenced or affected.

Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

(2) A person shall not, with the intention of influencing or affecting:

1. any vote of another person;
2. any candidature of another person; or
3. any support of, or opposition to, a candidate, a group of candidates or a political party by another person;
4. the doing of any act or thing by another person the purpose of which is, or the effect of which is likely to be, to influence the preferences set out
   in the vote of an elector; or
5. the order in which the names of candidates for election to the Senate whose names are included in a group in accordance with section 168 appear on a ballot paper;

give or confer, or promise or offer to give or confer, any property or benefit of any kind to that other person or to a third person.

Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

(3) This section does not apply in relation to a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action.

The thing I like about such huge claims under parliamentary privilege is that whatever happens, someone will be left with egg on their face. Who will it be? Windsor, Anderson or McGuire? One of them must be lying. So far John Anderson and Sandy Macdonald have categorically denied Tony Windsor’s allegations.

Update: Michelle Grattan has an interesting take on this story in today’s Age.

Update: In The Australian we learnt,

The Tamworth businessman [Greg McGuire] has been a key driver behind the Australian Equine and Livestock Centre, which received a $6 million government grant during the election campaign.

Update: Margo Kingston’s web diary had this link to a picture of Anderson, Macdonald and McGuire.

Update: In the blogsphere, Completely Biased has been following this story for some time.

Over at the mother ship I have just put up an electoral pendulum for the 2007 Federal election.

There are some key messages:

• If the Coalition lost 12 seats, it would lose its (absolute) majority in the House of Representatives.
• If Labor wins 16 seats it would have an absolute majority.
• Labor needs a uniform swing of around 5 per cent to win government.
• The Prime Minister’s seat of Bennelong is now in the marginal range.

The Australian Constitution allows the House of Representatives to operate for three years from its first meeting after a federal election. Once three years have elapsed the House expires and another federal election must be held. However, the government can dissolve the House of Representatives at any time and call an earlier election.

The election (which must be held on a Saturday) cannot be held less than 33 days after the expiry or dissolution of the House, and it cannot be held more than 68 days after the expiry or dissolution of the House.

The last general election was held on 9 October 2004 and the new House of Representatives will first met on Tuesday 16 November 2004. Therefore, this House will expire on Thursday 15 November 2007, and the next election for the House of Representatives must be held on or before Saturday 19 January 2008.

Over at the mother ship, I have started work on the next Federal election.

There are some interesting survey results on the Newspoll site. The Newspoll survey was conducted following the 2004 election by telephone with 1099 respondents.

When did you yourself finally decide to vote for the … (party)?

Would you say each of the following issues was very important, fairly important or not important to you in deciding who you voted for in the federal election held last Saturday?

You mentioned that in the federal election held last Saturday, you voted for … (party). Which one of the following was a stronger influence on the way you voted?

Can we generalise and say the Liberal supporters voted out of love and Labor supporters voted out of loathing?

Roy Morgan has detected the usual post-election honeymoon for the winner.

A month into the L-NP Government’s fourth term, Prime Minister John Howard’s approval and image ratings have soared. Now, 62% (up 8% since October 7/8) of electors believe Mr Howard would make a better Prime Minister than Opposition Leader Mark Latham (29%, down 8%), a special telephone Morgan Poll finds.

Approval of the way Mr Howard is handling his job as Prime Minister has risen to 59% (up 6%), while 34% disapprove (down 6%, 7% can’t say). Electors are largely divided on Mr Latham’s performance, with 47% (down 11%) approving of the way is handling his job as Opposition Leader, and 43% of electors disapproving (up 13%, 10% can’t say). This is Mr Latham’s lowest recorded approval rating as Opposition Leader. His highest approval rating was 64% in mid-September.

Nearly all L-NP supporters (96%) believed Mr Howard would make a better Prime Minister (Latham 2%), while less than two-thirds of ALP supporters said Mr Latham would make the better Prime Minister (Latham 62% cf Howard 28%).

Mr Howard’s approval rating is now only 6% below the high of 65% in mid-April 2003. In April 2003, only 28% of electors disapproved of Mr Howard’s job performance, compared to 34% saying they disapproved in the latest telephone poll.

These are the findings of a special telephone Morgan Poll conducted November 3/4, 2004, with an Australia-wide cross section of 517 electors.