Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 3 September 2003

In 1968 a drunken Teddy Kennedy drove off a bridge in Chappaquiddick. Thinking only of himself, he swam away from the scene of the accident leaving his passenger, a young women, to drown. Any other man would have gone to jail. Two weeks ago Bill William J. Janklow's reckless driving caused the death of a cyclist. He is now facing manslaughter charges.

Kennedy walked because he was an important Democrat. Janklow faces jail because he is not an important Democrat. In fact, he is — or was — an important Republican congressman. These two stories raise the intriguing question of whether Hanson's jailing indicates that the same kind of corruption that allowed Kennedy to not only go free but to prosper greatly is now infecting Australia. Many Australians certainly think so if their reaction to the harsh sentence handed out to Hanson is anything to go by.

Judge Patsy Wolfe admitted that Hanson and Ettridge's breaking of the electoral rules was not intended to benefit them "financially" but only to ensure that they maintained control of the party. In other words, Hanson wanted to keep out the fruitcakes.

However, the judge declared that their "crimes affected the confidence of people in the electoral process." Now how could Judge Patsy possibly now that to be true? Did she refer to any polls? Did she personally consult with the Australian people? Of course not. She was just expressing a feeling. That Australians expect more than this from their judges was made clear with startling clarity by their hostile reaction to Judge Wolfe's harsh sentence.

Now if the judge had a record of dealing severely with lawbreakers then no one could honestly question Hanson's sentence. Unfortunately for our legal and political system Judge Patsy Wolfe's record is out of kilter with her treatment of Hanson. A fact that those who support her ruling conveniently ignore.

The same Judge Wolfe who found Hanson's crime so odious that it merited singular treatment was far more accommodating to a 52-year-old pervert with a sordid record of sexual and violent offences. She sentenced this deviant to a mere six months imprisonment for sexually attacking an 11-year-old girl.

As Hanson's offence involved the misappropriation of funds perhaps Judge Wolfe's sentence was an expression of particular loathing for this kind of crime. But her treatment of Vicki Leanne Bourke suggests otherwise.

Bourke stole $190,000 from her boss and then gambled it away. Judge Wolfe gave her nine months in the clink and a suspended 4-year sentence. That works out at $5,278 for each week served. For Hanson the figure is zero because the money was returned. Yet she was considered too dangerous to warrant a suspended sentence or even bail. (They must think she's the Australian Ma Parker).

The above raises the question of proportionality, i.e., the punishment must fit the crime. When we compare Wolfe's sentencing record with the sentence she gave Hanson, I think we would be right to deduce that either her previous sentences were too light or that the Hanson sentence was too severe. Whatever the case, there is a glaring inconsistency that requires a public explanation.

However, it appears that the public has already drawn its own conclusions, and they do not flatter Judge Wolfe. To be honest, I think the public would be right to demand that Judge Wolfe be made to publicly justify her handling of the Hanson case.

Now that Abbot's role in the affair has become public Hanson supporters have more evidence to support their contention that the whole thing was a political setup. And who can blame them?

Rather than do the decent thing, Abbot and his crew set about to use legal technicalities to destroy Hanson, regardless of the consequences. This amounted to nothing less than political assassination. Hanson is a naïve and ignorant woman, so why didn't the brilliant Abbott and his merry band of politically sophisticated supporters simply take her to task in the public arena? Why didn't they just expose her ignorance and try to win over her supporters with reasoned arguments?

Because that would require hard work and, God forbid, even mixing it with the hoi polloi. Instead, he set upon a politically stupid conspiracy to completely shred her. No wonder he's called the "mad monk". (This moniker is an insult to Rasputin who at least had the excuse of being insane). As for being Machiavellian, that brilliant Renaissance political thinker would only have contempt for Abbott's political bungling and self-righteous posing.

The public has a right to know who else was in on this conspiracy to annihilate a political opponent. We already know that Harold Clough, of Clough Engineering and a heavy donor to the Institute of Public Affairs, was involved. How many more are yet to be revealed?

(Clough at least had the decency to confess his actions and to condemn Hanson's sentence as "outrageous". No such condemnation came from Abbott or his cronies).

Abbott's squalid tactics met with support from the usual quarters. According to Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer Hanson's political destruction "was not a politically driven decision, it's a legal decision". Gee, Al, so that's why Abbott and his mob went after her. They were motivated not by politics but a love of the law and electoral procedure. What can one say, other than only a congenital idiot would believe that self-serving rot.

Glen Milne also jumped to Abbott's defence, arguing, with a straight face no doubt, that Abbott's only concern "was the maintenance of the integrity of the electoral system". Does Milne really believe that Abbott would have set the dogs on Hanson if her party had been damaging the ALP instead of the Liberals? Not on your life.

Australians detest injustice — and that's why they condemn the sentence Judge Wolfe handed out to Hanson.

Gerard Jackson is also Brookes' Economics Editor