• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Keating's trial by television

by Simon Longstaff

Anyone who watched Australia's 60 Minutes air allegations of impropriety against former Prime Minister Paul Keating would agree the story pushed all the right buttons for a public disenchanted with the nation's political leadership.

The piggery story had it all: claims of public office being used for private gain, of secret deals and a genuine paper trail (flamboyantly rolled down a boardroom table) linking the whole episode to a bank (shorthand for corporate villain).

Yes, it was a rich confection. However, should the ingredients have included a greater measure of fairness to all of the parties concerned?

We must assume the program's producers would wish to argue there was a public interest in their broadcasting this story. They may argue that fundamental issues of parliamentary accountability (let alone issues of legality) are at stake.

However, even if these allegations prove to be true, was it really fair to air them on television and in doing so, harm the reputations of several people?

More precisely, was it fair to engage in a public ambush in which the opportunity for the other party to comment was so restricted by time as to make it irrelevant? Given the gravity of the allegations who would not find it difficult to comment with only five days' notice?

The producers would have feared that a fair warning about the content of the program might have led the aggrieved parties to seek an injunction preventing the broadcast. Indeed Keating said yesterday he would have done just that.

The implication flowing from the Nine Network's defensive approach, including its use of broadly misleading promotional material for much of the time leading up to the program is that if Keating had sought an injunction, this would have been a bad thing. But would it?

Conventional wisdom has it that our defamation laws are too often used by the rich and powerful to prevent proper comment on their activities. However, the defamation laws are designed to protect us all. They exist for good reason: in recognition of the fact that a person's good name is still considered to be among their most important assets.

More generally, the application for an injunction does not necessarily mean it will be granted. That's up to a judge.

Given this, we need to ask the producers of 60 Minutes to explain why they thought it so important to avoid the possibility of an injunction being granted. Whose interests were served by the program being shown on Sunday night?

The producers would probably say there is a public interest in exposing, investigating and prosecuting alleged wrongdoing.

However, is trial by TV the best medium for securing this public good? What harm would have been done if the broadcast had been delayed?

One presumes the damaging information would have been passed on to the proper authorities in any case. Or would it have been? It is slightly curious that the information obtained by 60 Minutes was handed over to the authorities only after the story had been broadcast. If the program had been delayed, would this information have been withheld until the story went to air?

What was the primary concern of 60 Minutes: to protect its exclusive story, to capture the ratings or to ensure the public interest in justice was satisfied?

This raises a further question. What are we to make of the timing of Al Constantinidis's allegations? One assumes he has been wrestling with the implications of the deal he allegedly made with Keating ever since its inception in 1991 and certainly since the alleged Kirribilli pact (Mark II) of 1994.

What significance should we attach to the fact that it is only now that the details of this alleged arrangement have been made public? Would Constantinidis have remained silent until the end if only Keating had honoured his side of the alleged bargain?

What then of the claim that the timing of the disclosure was motivated by a concern for public interest? What did 60 Minutes make of Constantinidis's timing?

None of this is meant to suggest the allegations are not serious and deserving of investigation. Rather, my point is there are less damaging ways in which allegations such as these can be made.

More importantly, society has established mechanisms that are supposed to ensure people accused of wrongdoing can get a fair hearing.

In this day and age, to publish is to punish especially when the allegations relate to a soft target; it is safe to say there are many people who would revel in Keating's public humiliation. This, if anything, would seem to be a good reason for being especially sensitive with his fragile reputation.

I have no doubt the people behind the 60 Minutes program believe in the ideal of serious investigative journalism. I have no doubt they would uphold a belief in the principles of natural justice.

That is why I am concerned that they manipulated events in a way that seems to have been more about their need to get a story to air than that of upholding a standard of fairness that even Keating is entitled to enjoy.

discuss this article

---