Martin Pool's blog

Mail me RSS Bazaar distcc Canonical is hiring! flickr

aj on Hanson's Sentence

For someone I mostly agree with, aj is good at goading me into writing. Anthony writes, on the issue of Ettridge and Hanson's sentencing:

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a lot of point getting worked up when a thief pays back everything they stole. If you're going to slap someone on the wrists, do it to the people who can and do remedy the harm they cause.

I think it's just you.

Giving back ill-gotten gains when somebody is caught or about to be caught does not undo the crime. There are at least three reasons: Hanson had the benefit of the money in the interim, the fraud was wrong in itself regardless of whether it was profitable, and there must be a disincentive to people “trying it on”. It's right and normal for criminals to do more than just repay the money. In passing sentence Wolfe CJ did consider their attempt to repay, among other mitigating circumstances, which is also entirely reasonable.

Most people are focussing on the money, but I think it's not the main problem. $500,000 out of a national budget is significant but not all that much. However, illegally interfering with an election deserves a ton of bricks, if not two.

One Nation's fraud brought them non-monetary benefits which they can't repay. We can't go back now and re-run the election with One Nation not registered. The sentence says:

There is no doubt that the registration of the party gave it an advantage. Before the 1998 election a coalition government held government with the help of one independent. After the election, when eleven One Nation candidates were elected, a Labour government held government with the help of one independent. I cannot speculate what might have happened had each One Nation candidate gone to the election without the benefit of registration. They would have been able and permitted to advertise as One Nation candidates but they would have had to lodge their candidacies for election independently and they would have been entitled to claim electoral funding if they had qualified with the four per cent. They would not have had their names identified with One Nation, the political party on the ballot paper.

Another argument offered in their defense is that it was a mistake on a technicality and there was no criminal intent. Similar, perhaps, to accidentally filing an incorrect tax return, rather than deliberately evading tax. But a jury in an apparently fair trial found that Hanson and Ettridge knew, and should have known, that what they were doing was wrong. So that defense is out.

Mediawatch quotes the Courier Mail saying:

Hanson's jailing for not properly understanding the detail will only confirm in the minds of many of her supporters that the world is indeed stacked against them.

What it ought to confirm is that before dealing with large amounts of money or running for government you damn well should understand the detail, or consult someone who does.

Arguments about whether One Nation is unaccountable to its members or has wacky policies are beside the point. If the Democrats or the Greens managed to defraud the public purse and get false information put onto ballots, thereby potentially changing the outcome of a state election, then they ought to be hammered too.

Are people complaining about this seriously suggesting that deliberately attempting to steal votes ought to get only a slap on the wrist?

Now if it turned out that Hanson didn't get a fair trial that would be different...

posted Thu 4 Sep 2003 in /issues/politics | link

Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.