Court Appearances Sure To Tarnish PM's Aura

by Steve Lewis - The Australian

The Cole corruption inquiry has damaged the Howard Government. Morally and politically. It has tarnished the Coalition's reputation and may yet go further in undermining public confidence in the national government.

Mark Vaile and Alexander Downer will both carry black marks against their names irrespective of the findings of Terence Cole into the AWB kickbacks scandal. The ministers failed to properly carry out their duties, turning a blind eye - whether deliberately or inadvertently - to information that should have alerted them, before it spilled into the public domain.

The vision of ministers in the dock is hugely damaging for the Coalition and will be seized on by Labor as the party crafts an advertising campaign for next year's election.

Vaile was sticking to a well-thumbed script as he fronted the commission yesterday: I didn't know, wasn't told, didn't bother to ask. Sorry Minister, but it is not good enough. Unfortunately, it will only get worse for the Government.

Cole has now stretched its tentacles into the highest office in the land, calling on John Howard to prepare a statement and make a likely appearance: the first prime minister to front a judicial inquiry since Bob Hawke 23 years ago.

Not surprisingly, the Government claims these ministerial appearances undermine Labor's central claim: that Cole is a toothless tiger, a patsy for the Coalition who will, at worst, deliver a mild slap on the ministerial wrist. This line of argument was being promoted by the Prime Minister yesterday. Cole was an "utterly transparent process", Howard argued, which was "designed to get to the truth".

Never mind that Howard's Government cleverly crafted the inquiry's terms of reference in the full knowledge that Cole will only go part of the way to uncovering the full extent of the Government's involvement in this international scandal. In particular, the commission is hampered in its ability to properly scrutinise the performance of ministers, the role of staff and public servants in carrying out their duties.

Labor is right in arguing the terms of reference should be widened to allow proper scrutiny of this critical function. Nor is the Government's defence credible, that Australia has done more than any other country to get to the bottom of the oil-for-food scandal.

We had no choice. After all, the former Australian Wheat Board was a government instrumentality, privatised only in the late 1990s, that forged close ties with the Coalition parties, particularly the Nationals. And it paid more in kickbacks to Iraq than any other enterprise bound up in the oil-for-food program. The Government was duty bound to at least establish a proper judicial inquiry into how AWB came to pay nearly $300 million in bribes to the former Iraqi dictator.

Thus far, it appears that Cole has failed to capture the public imagination. While this newspaper and other media outlets have assiduously followed the daily evidence, it has yet to materialise into the sort of barbecue stopper that shifts public opinion.

This week's appearances by Vaile, Downer and (perhaps) Howard should see to that. Public interest should skyrocket as the nightly news bulletins prominently carry the story of the Coalition's most senior figures being grilled by counsel assisting the inquiry.

While there is always a danger for Labor of overplaying its hand - the boy who cried wolf syndrome - it has so far played the politics about right. Labor strategists are hoping the issue will gain traction over time, denting the Coalition's public standing and Howard's integrity.

There is a useful parallel in this tactic of gradual erosion. Paul Keating never fully recovered from the strident attacks made on him during his final years in office. The Coalition, then in Opposition, successfully dented Keating's standing by arguing that his piggery interests and his expenditure on the Lodge was evidence of a political persona out of touch with Mr and Mrs Ordinary Voter.

Howard, who has painstakingly sought to avoid allegations of excess and hubris, will have to carefully guard against similar sentiment seeping into the public consciousness.

There is another danger for the Government. National security has been an electoral trump card for the Coalition during its decade in office. Howard has astutely crafted a man of steel image, playing the tough guy to (mostly) popular acclaim in the suburbs. This hard-fought reputation is at risk.

Voters will seize on the monumental hypocrisy of a government that deployed Australian troops to topple Saddam Hussein being complicit in the payment of $300 million in bribes to the disgraced former dictator. This will be particularly damaging for Howard, harming his national security credibility in the lead-up to next year's poll.

Against this backdrop, the onus is on Labor to maintain its forensic pursuit of the Government. A vibrant democracy requires an effective parliamentary opposition, focused on keeping the government of the day fully accountable for its actions.

Distracted by recent internal ructions, the Opposition has not adequately fulfilled this basic charter. Yet there are signs Beazley and Co are back on track.

While the outcome of Cole is uncertain, some undeniable truths have already emerged. Australia's reputation in the international marketplace has been tarnished. The credibility of senior ministers, Vaile and Downer, too, has been damaged, no matter how loud their cries of innocence.

The Howard Government must also face up to the shortcomings in the wheat sector's regulatory arrangements and take appropriate responsibility for what has become this country's biggest scandal. Public confidence in the national government demands a level of accountability that, sadly, has been lacking in the whole AWB affair.