‘Gaming the system’: Coalition MPs tired of defending Porter’s anonymous donors

A secretive parliamentary committee with the power to recommend punishment for MPs is considering Christian Porter’s use of a “blind trust” to pay for part of his legal fees, along with the broader issue of anonymous donations sourced via crowdfunding.

Several backbench Liberal MPs are uncomfortable about having to continue to defend Mr Porter, while former Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy QC warns questions about perceived conflicts of interest will remain as long as the donors stay secret.

A parliamentary committee is looking at the issues around Christian Porter’s use of a blind trust to pay legal fees.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

“It’s gaming the system. If it’s technically legal, that doesn’t make it right,” said one Coalition MP, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Several government MPs told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age they were upset about setting a precedent allowing donors to the trust to remain secret, with Leader of the House Peter Dutton moving to reassure them that the issue will be looked at.

The House of Representatives’ privileges committee will consider the issues, despite Parliament voting against referring the Porter matter.

“There should be clearer rules and clearer guidelines, Mr Speaker, to members of this place, so they can take decisions [regarding legal action],” Prime Minister Scott Morrison told Parliament on Thursday.

The committee has received three requests to look at the matter, from Mr Dutton, shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus and Greens deputy leader Larissa Waters.

Mr Dutton’s letter asked the committee to “clarify for the benefit of all members” what declaration was required on third-party contributions, whether through crowdfunding or from political parties, including those used for legal fees.

In September, Mr Porter revealed part of his legal fees for the defamation action he took against the ABC had been paid from “a blind trust known as the Legal Services Trust”. He has not confirmed if he knows who contributed to the trust. Mr Porter resigned from cabinet after Mr Morrison sought advice over whether the move breached ministerial standards.

Senator Waters asked the privileges committee shortly after these events to compel Mr Porter to identify donors to the trust.

On Wednesday evening, Speaker Tony Smith reported to the house he believed it was reasonable for the privileges committee to examine Mr Porter’s declaration. However, in an unprecedented move, the government voted down a formal motion for Parliament to ask the committee to examine the matter.

Mr Smith’s ruling did not cast judgment on Mr Porter’s actions, only determined the matter deserved further investigation.

Mr Dutton reinforced this point to MPs on Thursday morning to reassure those angry over the events, party sources speaking on condition of anonymity said. Many MPs are finding themselves repeatedly attacked on social media and having calls to their offices over the issue.

The minister told them the whole matter of trusts and donations was being looked at but also acknowledged legal expenses were an issue.

Mr Dutton is currently pursuing a defamation action and told MPs he expected the case would cost him between $150,000 and $200,000 – money he would miss but was lucky to afford.

The privileges committee met after the vote was held on Wednesday, having received the letters of referral.

It will report back to Parliament and can make a finding on whether there has been a breach of the rules. If there has,it can recommend punishments ranging from a censure motion to suspending the MP from Parliament.

Members of the committee are not permitted to speak publicly about its private deliberations.

Mr Whealy said it was important the donors be brought to light to maintain Parliament’s integrity.

It was likely in Mr Porter’s case that large sums of money were involved and “there’s every reason to suppose that there are some big donors involved”, he said.

“It’s the potential conflict of interest that must be revealed. Once we see that, we may say to ourselves no there’s no conflict of interest,” he said.

“But if it’s kept from us, as he is doing, then we can never be sure about that and we lose confidence in the political process and politicians as a result.”

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said he thought the standard of integrity in Parliament had declined since he left politics and he was convinced of the need for a federal anti-corruption watchdog.

“There is a culture of entitlement, there’s a culture of non-accountability. I am really deeply troubled by it,” he told ABC Melbourne.

Mr Porter was contacted for comment but did not respond.