• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Sorry, but it is a hanging offence:

Peter Reith's Telecard

by Simon Longstaff

Despite what the Prime Minister says, I regret to say that Peter Reith's misuse of his Telecard is a hanging offence. If he survives in office, then it will only be because John Howard has let him off the hook.

Much of the debate about Reith's conduct in this matter and the nature of the PM's reaction has tended to focus on the amount of AU$50,000 charged to the card over a period of nearly five years. Indeed, Reith has sought to draw attention to the fact that he is, at least in relation to most of these charges, an 'innocent victim'.

By concentrating on the extraordinary number of calls made with the Telecard, their exotic points of origin and their relative value, we are encouraged to accept the argument that this case is similar to those in which a person's credit card is stolen and then abused by nameless people. And to some extent this may be true. After all, it really is inconceivable that Reith had any intention of allowing the rampant use of the Telecard to occur.

However, this is to miss the point entirely. The real mischief in this affair is not the amount of money misappropriated from the Commonwealth, it is in relation to the violation of principle (if not the law) that occurred with Reith's original decision to provide the Telecard to his son.

To his credit, Reith has not attempted to deny that this is what occurred. On this point, his candour has been exemplary. Indeed, Reith has painted a picture that seems, at one level, to be both obvious and unexceptionable. Put simply, he has told us that he was concerned about the welfare of his son and, recognising that his child might need to contact him in an emergency, provided the confidential details needed to make use of the Government-issued Telecard.

Concern for the welfare of a child is perfectly understandable. However, if we remove any trace of sentimentality from our assessment of this decision, then what we find is that Reith has freely admitted that he deliberately provided the means for his son to spend commonwealth monies for an unauthorised purpose.

Reith might point to the fact that he thought that the sums involved would be trivial. But again, this is to miss the point. At the level of fundamental principle, the sum involved is irrelevant.

Alternatively, Reith might have argued that it was always his intention that the money would be paid back to the Commonwealth. However, there is little evidence of this intention. What we know is that Reith made no formal enquiries about his liabilities from abuse of the Telecard. He only acted when a Telstra official questioned the size of the account.

So, although it is easy to understand Reith's concern for his son, it is inexplicable that he should have provided his official Telecard for private use – rather than simply obtain one on his own account.

Reith wilfully took public property, provided to him as a matter of trust, and authorised another person to use it for his private purposes.

The fact that he did not check the regulations governing the use of public property is no more of an excuse for Reith than it is for any other person. It is for these reasons that I reluctantly conclude that Reith committed a 'hanging offence'.

Whether or not Reith should be hanged is an altogether different question that must be answered by Howard. So, what considerations might the PM take into account?

For a start, he will need to bear in mind the Government's overall approach to people who misuse Commonwealth funds – even for apparently legitimate reasons. For example, the federal Government has been quite tenacious in tracking down and prosecuting cases where welfare recipients have committed fraud against the commonwealth. Simply saying sorry and paying back the money is rarely a sufficient response. One might reasonably expect that the Government would adopt an equally strict approach to anyone aiding or abetting such conduct – irrespective of their motives.

Howard will need to consider how Reith's behaviour compares to that of welfare cheats. His challenge will be to ensure that he is not seen to be making one rule for the powerful within his own ranks and another for all others.

Howard has had many months to think about Reith's conduct. He has concluded that the offence does not warrant dismissal from his ministry. It is open to him to make this decision. After all, we should admire mercy – but not, I think, at the expense of justice.

As a minimal response, I believe that justice requires that the seriousness of Reith's conduct be formally acknowledged. Then, the case for clemency should be made on fair ground and, if it can be established, in the public interest.

discuss this article

---