Political history has many examples of those in power seeking to rid themselves of inconvenient opposition.
Henry II cried in 1170: “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”
Henry’s knights took the hint and it was goodbye Thomas A Beckett. Henry did not imagine they would murder A Beckett.
Henry VIII hacked off the heads of Thomas More and the occasional inconvenient wife, among others.
In later times the process became less bloody.
Prime Minister Robert Menzies appointed possible leadership aspirants Richard Casey and Percy Spender to diplomatic posts.
Australian Labor Party Prime Minister Gough Whitlam appointed Democratic Labor Party Senator Vince Gair to be Ambassador to Ireland and the Holy See in the hope that the ALP might get Gair’s Senate seat.
Even at the local level, Chief Minister Kate Carnell appointed the two MLAs likely to give her the greatest electoral opposition – Labor’s Rosemary Follett and Terry Connolly – to judicial posts.
She invited the pesky independent Michael Moore to the Ministry.
So it would have been no surprise if Tony Windsor, the independent Member for the formerly safe National seat of New England, had been offered a diplomatic post which would have had the inevitable effect of the seat reverting to the ever-shrinking Nationals.
But the bribery allegation does not make sense
The allegation that Nationals Leader John Anderson and Nationals Senator Sandy Macdonald said to Windsor, “Look, if you don’t stand in New England, we’ll give you a plum diplomatic post” would be plain idiocy. Why bother linking the two? Why not just appoint him Ambassador to Timbuktu? Once he accepted it would plainly follow that his parliamentary career would be over.
Section 326 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act provides: “A person shall not, with the intention of influencing or affecting . . . any candidature of another person 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 two years, or both.”
The critical words are “with the intention of”. Intentions are hard to prove.
Menzies appointed Casey to Washington because he would make a fine ambassador. Prove otherwise. Whitlam appointed Gair because he would make a fine ambassador.
The fact that it meant these appointees’ parliamentary careers were over was just an incidental effect of the offer of the appointment. Any suggestion they made the appointments because they wanted these people out of the way is unprovable conjecture.
So it would be if the Government had appointed Windsor as Ambassador to Timbuktu. Remember, Windsor told Parliament that he had been made the offer before caretaker period so appointments were within the Government’s gift.
Why couch the job offer in terms of a deal under which Windsor would agree not stand for election? Why not just offer the job and let the natural consequences follow? End of story. No breach of the Electoral Act.
That is the difficulty with the “bribe” story. Indeed, the “turbulent priest” theory might be a better explanation. Anderson and other Nationals no doubt cursed Windsor and then someone knights got too enthusiastic. We will probably never know.
But the real lesson is that people in power like to keep it. They will try to get rid of inconvenient people. They will use appointments to do it. They will also use appointments to reward mates.
And as in the Windsor case they will starve enemies and reward friends with bounty if it helps them stay in power.
Macdonald made it clear that Windsor and his electorate would be starved. He said, “I don’t think that he’s going to have very many ministerial doors open to him now.”
Independent Peter Andren said that the Government sought to take credit for things done in his (former National) electorate. The Government showered largesse upon marginal electorates last election and in previous elections.
Labor did it, too. The sports rorts case was a classic of a government handing out money for worthy projects in marginal electorates in an attempt to attract voters.
In a mature democracy power should be spread and separated.
We need greater scrutiny of government largesse and appointments.
What is the Government doing subsiding an equine centre, anyway? Shouldn’t that be a private-enterprise venture? We should not be asking so much, “Where’s the money coming from?” but, “Where’s the money going to?”
On appointments, we should do away with patronage altogether and make all jobs subject to merit selection. Or at least we should have some sort of independent panel to certify that any political appointee is capable of doing the job. Perhaps we should have such appointments – including that of the Governor-General, subject to parliamentary veto.
The police may well have packed in the Windsor case, but it still illustrates that our system has too many opportunities for abuse of power.