19th November 1997
Letter to the Editor
The Financial Review
Dear Sir,
re: Easton Petition - Royal Commission.
It is just over two years since Mr Justice Marks handed down his report into the involvement of the then Federal Minister for Human Services and Health, Dr Lawrence. I am reminded of the date (14th Nov) by re-reading a letter I received from the Office of the Prime Minister, Mr Paul Keating, dated 24th January 1996, just five weeks before he was roundly rejected by the Australian people.
That letter was accompanied by a copy of a press release of a statement by the Prime Minister, the Hon P J Keating MP. Just a sample of the invective of the Prime Minister will suffice to indicate its tenor: - “The commission was unable to rise above its poisoned origins”: The terms of reference “were drawn up to put Dr Lawrence and the Labor Party on trial”: “The Court Government was prepared to spend millions of dollars of W A taxpayers money and to array the full force of the Executive power of the State against one decent woman” - And this most telling claim, “I continue to have complete confidence in Carmen Lawrence and look forward to her continued role as a senior and valued member of the Government”.
The letter was in response to my letter to Keating dated 15th November 1995, challenging him to explain why he had failed to reveal that he had been informed in May of that year by Mr J McGinty, the then W A ALP leader of the Opposition, that no member of Lawrence’s former Cabinet would be prepared to give evidence in support of her claims - Claims found by Justice Marks to be untruthful. Surely this must have indicated to Keating that no-one in possession of the facts would be prepared to give perjured evidence to save Lawrence’s political hide.
On the 1st December 1995, the Financial Review published my letter which posed the question: Did Keating reveal the import of McGinty’s statement to his Cabinet? and If not, why not? Keating’s reluctant admission that the meeting with McGinty did occur, gives great significance to the answers to those questions.
If he did not confide this information, then he was guilty of a serious breach of trust to the Australian people. If he did, then we are left with the very serious proposition of a conspiracy by the Cabinet to improperly commit taxpayer’s funds to protect a Labor mate. Therefore, the circle of guilt encloses the entire Keating Cabinet, including many now senior Opposition figures.
In February this year a report in the Financial Review (6/2./97) indicated the Government had paid almost (Au)$369,000 of Lawrence’s costs incurred in unnecessary attempts to stop the Marks Royal Commission. Another report (Sydney Morning Herald 13/2/97) indicated that a law suit by Lawrence’s lawyers for a further (Au)$560,000 had begun. When compared with these figures, the travel rorts matters fade into insignificance, despite Gareth Evans’ cynical attempts to beat up the Colston issue.
They also lend weight to my allegations in November/December 1995, that Keating and his Cabinet’s actions constituted “a scandal comparable to, if not worse than, the infamous Nixon/Watergate affair”.
My letter concluded - The real tragedy is that, so far, Australia has yet to produce journalists dedicated to getting to the truth, and the courage and determination to expose corruption in high places.
Regrettably, that is still the case but I must now include in my criticism the present Government, which by its reluctance to adequately deal with the matter, suggests they condone the “whatever it takes” philosophy of former Senator Richardson.
Charles J Connelly.
