Senator Heffernan's accusations against Justice Kirby: should parliamentary privilege in Australia be restricted?

Click here to go back to the issue outlines list

Sections in this issue outline (in order)
1 What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.

Dictionary
To activate the in-built dictionary linked to this issue outline, double-click on any word in the body of the text (IE only).

Analysis help
Students and others can read a guide to analysing the language of the news media by clicking the graphic at right.

Age and Australian items
To list all Echo-indexed items on this topic for 2002, click the graphic at right

Sydney Morning Herald items
To list items indexed by the NSW State Library's Infoquick, click the graphic at right

Senator Heffernan's accusations against Justice Kirby: should parliamentary privilege in Australia be restricted?

Senator Heffernan's accusations against Justice Kirby: should parliamentary privilege in Australia be restricted?

What they said ...
'What the parliament should do ... is stop the Heffernans from running amok, destroying the reputations of innocent people, promoting hatred and damaging the institution of parliament itself'
Melbourne QC Neil Brown, former deputy leader of the federal Liberal Party

'There's no set precedent for dealing with something like this and I'm trying to do it in a way that's fair, fair to the Judge, but also recognising that in this world when something like parliamentary privilege is available people do raise issues and you do have to try and work your way through it in a fair and proper fashion'
The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, in an interview with the 7.30 Report's Kerry O'Brien

The issue at a glance
On March 12, 2002, Senator John Heffernan made a speech in the federal Senate in which he accused Justice Michael Kirby of being unfit to preside over cases involving child sex abuse and accused him of having made improper use of Commonwealth cars to procure young male prostitutes for homosexual sex.
These allegations, levelled against one of Australia's most respected jurists, caused a public uproar, and sparked debate about the use and misuse of parliamentary privilege.
Senator Heffernan's Comcar allegations were found to be based on forged documents and his principal witness was judged unreliable. The Senator lost his position as Cabinet Secretary and has been required publicly to apologise to Justice Kirby for the allegations he made against him.
The concern about how to prevent similar misuse of parliamentary privilege remains.

Background
1. Senator Heffernan's allegations
From the floor of the Senate, and thus under parliamentary privilege, Senator Heffernan alleged that Justice Kirby 'fails the test of public trust and judicial legitimacy'. By this the Senator appeared to mean that Justice Kirby was unfit to preside over cases where the defendant was accused of paedophilia. He claimed that Justice Kirby was not 'not fit and proper to sit in judgment of people charged with sex offences against children'.
Senator Heffernan argued that Justice Kirby could not be regarded as 'impartial' in such cases. Senator Heffernan implied that Justice Kirby's own sexual practices should render him ineligible to preside over paedophilia cases.
Specifically, Senator Heffernan alleged that Justice Kirby used his Commonwealth car to collect young male prostitutes and take them back to his house. He claimed that Justice Kirby 'indiscreetly, improperly and illegally used Comcar ... regularly trawled for rough trade at the Darlinghurst Wall ... [and] according to police statements and interviews regularly played out his fantasies in a fee-for-service arrangement.'
Senator Heffernan called for the establishment of a 'federal judicial commission' to investigate possible instances of judicial misbehaviour that would indicate judges were unfit to fulfil the demands of their office.

2. Parliamentary privilege and its potential abuse
Parliamentary debate is protected by parliamentary privilege, which means that members of parliament cannot be sued for any remarks they make within the parliament.
The only limitation placed on what parliamentarians may say is that they cannot deliberately mislead parliament.
There are two types of speech within parliament that may be of concern re abuse of parliamentary privilege.
Firstly, there are the sorts of utterance, such as those made by Ms Pauline Hanson, that are considered by some to be damaging because they potentially create ill-will within the community and have the capacity to foment violence and social dislocation.
Secondly, there are comments made within parliament about individuals that are potentially defamatory, having the capacity to seriously damage the good name of the people referred to.
If utterances of this second sort were made outside parliament the people affected would be able to sue for defamation and be given compensation and/or a retraction.
This is not possible when the remarks are made within parliament because each parliamentarian is protected by parliamentary privilege and can make any claim without fear of facing a legal suit outside the parliament.
There are parliamentary privileges committees to which a member of parliament can complain if his or her capacity to operate as a member of parliament has been in any way restricted by false allegations made within parliament.
These committees can impose penalties, including imprisonment. Yet, there is no equivalent body to which citizens can complain if they believe parliamentarians, improperly using their parliamentary privilege, have damaged them.
In 1988, the Australian Senate became the first legislature in the world to give citizens aggrieved by parliamentary privilege the right to have their written reply to accusations incorporated into the parliamentary record.

3. The separation of powers
Of concern in the current debate is that Justice Kirby is a member of the High Court. A number of commentators have expressed concern Senator Heffernan's attack in some way undermines the separation of Parliament and judiciary intended by the Australian Constitution.
Under Australia's Constitution there are three branches of government - the legislative branch, which makes laws, the judicial branch which interprets and implements some of these laws and the executive branch which carries out laws and implements government policy as embodied in these laws.
The three bodies that were established by the Constitution to carry out these powers are the Parliament (the legislative power to make laws); the Commonwealth Executive (the executive power to administer laws and carry out the business of government); and the Federal Judicature (the judicial power exercised by courts). Though in practice there is some overlap in the functions of these various branches of government, in theory they are meant to be separate. The framers of Australia's Constitution feared that if one branch of government began to take on the powers of the others than the result could be tyranny. Each branch is meant to act as a check or corrective on the unbridled power of the others.
As part of an attempt to ensure the separation of powers the Constitution requires that a judge of the High Court can only be dismissed though both houses of parliament voting for removal. This is a difficult condition to meet and this section of the Constitution has never been used. The basis on which such a dismissal would be effected is judicial 'misconduct', however, there is no clear understanding as to what would constitute misconduct.

4. Possible limitations on parliamentary privilege
A number of proposals have been made to reform the operation of parliamentary privilege.
It has been suggested that before allegations of a sexual or personal nature are made within Parliament, the privileges committee should vet them.
If a parliamentarian does not submit his or her allegations to the committee prior to airing them in the parliament, or if he or she does not abide by the recommendation(s) of the committee then that person should lose the protection of parliamentary privilege.
Further, it has been suggested, if a court should find that a parliamentarian acted with malice or acted unfairly or irresponsibly in making an accusation under parliamentary privilege then the protection of parliamentary privilege should be lost.

5. Some previous contentious allegations made under parliamentary privilege
In December 1994 NSW Labor MP Deidre Grusovin alleged in state parliament that Sydney solicitor, John Marsden, and Wollongong mayor, Frank Arkell, were part of a paedophile brotherhood. The day after her speech, Deidre Grusovin stepped down from the ALP frontbench. Marsden later successfully sued Channel Seven for defamation for having claimed he was a paedophile.
In October 1997 NSW Labor MP Franca Arena alleged in state parliament to have knowledge of an extensive paedophile network. She tabled documents apparently in support of her claim.
The parliament ordered Police Commissioner Peter Ryan to assess the material. Ryan dismissed most claims but decided to use a senior British officer, Chief Superintendent Michael Woodhouse, to investigate the remainder. John Marsden and Justice Michael Kirby were the focus of the Woodhouse investigation. (It was revealed in March 2002, apparently as an upshot of the Heffernan allegations, that the NSW police had found no grounds on which to prosecute Justice Kirby.)
Mrs Arena then claimed that senior Government and Opposition MPs had conspired to protect paedophiles. Mrs Arena was ultimately expelled from the NSW parliament. A Carr government minister, John Della Bosca, sued her for defamation. The case was settled out of court.

6. Background to Senator Heffernan's allegation
In January 1998 John Heffernan had contacted Michael Woodhouse, the man in charge of investigating Franca Arena's allegations, with documents that he claimed incriminated Justice Kirby. As already noted, after investigating this material and the allegations of Mrs Arena, the New South Wales Police found there were no grounds on which to prosecute Justice Kirby.
One of Heffernan's key witnesses had been a young man who had testified against John Marsden in the defamation case brought against Channel Seven. Justice David Levine, presiding over the Marsden defamation case, had doubted that young man's evidence. Heffernan also relied on Comcar records that were later shown to be forgeries.

Internet information
The full text of Senator Heffernan's allegations against Justice Kirby can be found in the Senate Hansard record for March 12, 2002, beginning on page 573. This record can be found on the Internet at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds120302.pdf
Please note, this is a pdf file and can only be read using Adobe Acrobat Reader.
A copy of the same speech can currently be found on Malcolm Farnsworth's Australian Politics site at http://australianpolitics.com/news/2002/03/02-03-12.shtml

The Prime Minister, Mr Howard's response to Senator Heffernan's allegations can be found in an answer he gave on March 13, 2002, to a question without notice from the leader of the Opposition, Mr Crean.
Mr Howard's position can be found on page 1161 and following in the Hansard record of that day. The Internet record of this response can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr130302.pdf
Please note, this is a pdf file and can only be read using Adobe Acrobat Reader.

On March 18, 2002, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, gave a further explanation of his position in an interview with Alan Jones of Radio 2GB. A full transcript of this interview can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2002/interview1559.htm

On March 19, 2002, Mr Howard gave an interview on the Heffernan allegations to Kerry O'Brien of the ABC's 7.30 Report. A full transcript of this interview can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2002/interview1567.htm

On March 13, 2002, the ACT Chief Minister, Mr Jon Stanhope, issued a press release critical of Senator Heffernan, Mr Howard and Attorney General, Daryl Williams, in regard to the allegations made against Justice Kirby.
This press release can be found at http://www.act.gov.au/mediareleases/fileread.cfm?file=HEFFERNAN.txt

On March 18, 2002, the Law Institute of Victoria issued a press release critical of Senator Heffernan and in defence of Justice Kirby. This statement can be found at http://www.liv.asn.au/news/media/20020318_jkd.html

The issues site Public Debate has a brief treatment of the question 'High Court Judges: do their private lives matter?'
This discussion can be found at http://www.publicdebate.com.au/is/986/bg.html

The Public Debate site also has a treatment of the question 'Parliamentary privilege: should it be abolished?' This discussion can be found at http://www.publicdebate.com.au/is/859/bg.html

The federal House of Representatives Infosheet No 5 deals with parliamentary privilege. It explains why the privilege exists, what it allows, its historical origins and what penalties can be applied if it is misused. It also explains the function of the privileges committee.
This document, which was updated in April 2002, can be found at
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/infosheets/is05.pdf
Please note, this is a pdf file and can only be read using Adobe Acrobat Reader.

The federal House of Representatives Infosheet No 17 deals with citizens' right of reply if they believe they have been damaged by a parliamentarian exercising parliamentary privilege.
The right of reply gives citizens the opportunity to have their responses to allegations made about them incorporated into Hansard. The speaker must decide if such a request should be forwarded to the privileges committee and the committee must decide if the reply should be published in Hansard.
Infosheet No 17 can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/infosheets/is17.pdf
Please note, this is a pdf file and can only be read using Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Monash University's news site Monash Newsline has published an extract from a Monash University Law School Foundation lecture titled, 'Parliamentary privilege - ending the abuse.'
The lecture was given by Michael Kroger, B.Juris (1978), LLB (1980). Mr Kroger is a former president of the Victorian Liberal Party.
The extract from the speech can be found at http://www-pso.adm.monash.edu.au/news/Story.asp?ID=75&SortType=2

Arguments in favour of restricting parliamentary privilege in Australia
1. Parliamentary privilege allows members of parliament to make damaging and unfounded allegations against Australian citizens
The allegations made against Justice Kirby were potentially extremely damaging. Senator Heffernan made allegations about Justice Kirby's personal life which he intended to demonstrate made the judge unfit to perform his official duties.
It has been repeatedly noted that the allegations made by Senator Heffernan were unfounded. The federal Employment Minister confirmed in the parliament that Senator Heffernan's Comcar allegations had previously been investigated and found to be inaccurate. Michael Gordon, writing in The Age, comments '[This raises] the question of whether the dodgy [Comcar] docket was examined and discredited more than a year ago.'
It has been suggested that at the very least the senator was using parliamentary privilege to pursue a personal prejudice against homosexuals and that he was doing so with a casual disregard for the quality of the evidence on which he claimed to base his allegations.
Critics of parliamentary privilege argue that it should not be possible for parliamentarians to make serious allegations against others without having to supply some evidence to support their claims.
Neil Brown, a Melbourne QC and former deputy leader of the federal Liberal party has argued, 'Where allegations are going to be made of a sexual or personal nature, they should be vetted by the Privileges Committee before the speech is made.'
Mr Brown has maintained that any MP who does not have such allegations vetted or who refuses to abide by the ruling of the privileges committee should lose the protection of parliamentary privilege.

2. Parliamentary privilege can be used in ways that damage Australian institutions
It has been claimed that the allegations made by Senator Heffernan against Justice Kirby have damaged both the institution of Parliament and the High Court on which Justice Kirby sits. It has also been suggested that the debate surrounding Senator Heffernan's allegations has the potential to undermine the principle of separation of powers.
It has been claimed that Senator Heffernan's defamatory and unfounded allegations against Justice Kirby have brought the institution of parliament into disrepute. According to this line of argument the electorate is likely to have little respect for a body whose rules allow one of its members to make scurrilous and unsubstantiated allegations against a prominent judge with impunity. The Australian in an editorial published on March 20, 2002, stated, 'Through his actions, Senator Heffernan has sullied the reputation of ... the parliament.'
Concern has also been expressed that in attacking a High Court judge in this manner and in casting doubt on Justice Kirby's capacity to make judgements in cases involving the sexual abuse of minors Senator Heffernan has attacked the Australian judiciary. This point was made by the Law Society of NSW, a spokesperson for whom claimed, 'Senator Heffernan unfairly and improperly suggested that one of Australia's eminent High Court judges, Justice Michael Kirby, was not "fit and proper to sit in judgment of people charged with sexual offences against children". This unsubstantiated claim potentially amounts to an attack on our justice system.'
It has also been suggested that Senator Heffernan has undermined the independence of the judiciary. According to this line of argument, had Justice Kirby stood down in response to Senator Heffernan's allegations he would have been compromising the independence of the judiciary by responding to intimidatory accusations from the floor of the house.
It has further been claimed that Prime Minister Howard's response to this affair, if implemented, would undermine the principle of the separation of powers. The Prime Minister proposed that a parliament-appointed body be established to hear allegations against judges. On March 13, in response to a question from the leader of the Opposition, Mr Crean, Mr Howard suggested, 'Federal parliament should develop and adopt a protocol governing the receipt and investigation of serious complaints against federal judicial officers.' Critics maintain this would only institutionalise the parliament's power to attack judges under the guise of scrutinising their conduct.

3. Parliamentary privilege can be used to promote prejudice and social dislocation
Justice Kirby has been open about his homosexuality for many years and has been a prominent advocate for public acceptance of homosexuals. He has publicly stated, 'You should reject "poofter bashing" and harassment of people you think might be gay. This is the conduct of cowards.'
Justice Kirby has also stated, 'I want to tell you that gays and lesbians exist, as they always have, in every walk of life. They are no better and no worse than other people.'
It has been claimed that in holding Justice Kirby up to public ridicule and accusing him of using Commonwealth vehicles to 'indiscreetly, improperly and illegally ... trawl for rough trade at the Darlinghurst Wall' Senator Heffernan has sought to undermine a prominent spokesperson for homosexual rights. It has further been claimed that in so doing Senator Heffernan is feeding the popular prejudice against homosexuals and promoting anti-homosexual feeling within the general community. This could lead to the violent assaults against homosexuals that Justice Kirby has tried to discourage.

4. Parliamentary privilege can be used for party political purposes
Parliamentary privilege can be used to discredit a parliamentarian's political opponents or to advance a particular political cause. For example, it has been claimed that the accusations made against Justice Kirby in parliament suited the government's political agenda.
According to this line of argument, Justice Kirby has a more radical perspective on a range of issues than the current government and a number of the rulings he has contributed to have not been in line with government policy. It has also been noted that Justice Kirby has argued that the federal government is under-funding education.
Critics of Senator Heffernan's attack on Justice Kirby have argued that the Prime Minister's initial reluctance to discipline Senator Heffernan may have stemmed from the hope the accusations would be proved true and it would be possible to remove Justice Kirby from the High Court.
Mike Steketee, The Australian's national affairs editor, 'Unavoidable in this tawdry episode is the impression that Howard was salivating at the prospect of blasting Michael Kirby from the High Court. He not only stood by Bill Heffernan after he raised the allegations in parliament without warning, but he brought out further unsubstantiated material and proffered the view that judges could be sacked for less than criminal conduct.'

5. Citizens harmed by comments made under parliamentary privilege have no adequate means of redress.
Those against whom defamatory allegations are made in parliament have almost no means of address. Under the terms of the 1988 Parliamentary Privilege Act they can have their defence against such allegations incorporated into Hansard. This, however, does not go very far toward re-establishing their damaged reputations.
Jill Singer made this point in a comment published in The Herald Sun on March 15, 2002. Ms Singer states, 'Using Parliament - coward's castle - caused maximum damage to Justice Kirby while leaving him no recourse for the inestimable damage to his considerable reputation.'
If such remarks had been made outside parliament, Justice Kirby would have been able to sue Senator Kirby for defamation and had he won the case Justice Kirby would have been able to publicly restore his reputation. Parliamentary privilege, however, denies Justice Kirby this means of redress.
As Jill Singer notes, 'Mr Heffernan knows full well he can't be sued over anything he says in Parliament - however homophobic, vile or untrue.'

Arguments against restricting parliamentary privilege in Australia
1. Restrictions on parliamentary privilege might impede parliamentary debate
It is claimed that parliamentary privilege is an important element of the democratic system. According to this argument, legislation and other matters of public importance can only be properly considered if debate is free and unencumbered by fear of prosecution.
Therefore, it is claimed, if we want our politicians to be able to pursue our interests vigorously in parliament, they cannot be restricted by fear of law suits or other forms of retaliation if they speak their minds.
The Australian editorial of March 20, 2002, stated, 'Under the Westminster system, parliamentary privilege enables the people's representatives to raise maters of concern and to speak their minds on issues of importance without fear of legal reprisal.'

2. Restrictions on parliamentary privilege might reduce parliamentarians' capacity to represent members of the public
Senator Heffernan believes he was acting in support of child victims of homosexual abuse. As Matt Price and Martin Chulov noted in an article published in The Australian on March 16, 2002, 'the father of four insists his tireless ... campaign against child abuse ... is driven ... by ... a passion to protect the children of Australia.'
One of the allegations against Justice Kirby referred to, but not tabled, in Parliament by Senator Heffernan was from a man who claimed to have been sexually involved with Justice Kirby when aged 17 years and six months in 1991. Senator Heffernan appears to have believed he was acting on behalf of such supposed victims of abuse when making his claims about Justice Kirby.
Senator Heffernan's supporters argue that all he was attempting to do was represent a vulnerable group within the Australian community and to use the power of the Parliament to bring their abusers to the public notice.
It has been claimed that if parliamentary privilege is curtailed then parliamentarians will be less able to take up causes on behalf of members of the public.

3. Restrictions on parliamentary privilege might exempt the rich and the powerful from being criticised within parliament
Parliamentary privilege originally became part of the British democratic tradition as a means of preventing parliamentarians being intimidated by the Crown or others who held great power and influence.
It is claimed that even today those with wealth and power are largely immune from public prosecution as they are able to use their influence to deflect criticism, while their wealth enables to mount legal defences beyond the reach of the ordinary citizen.
According to this line of argument, exposing someone suspected of serious wrong doing in parliament can become the option of last resort. Prime Minister Howard made this defence of John Heffernan's allegations against Justice Kirby.
Kate Wentworth, an anti-paedophile campaigner, has made a similar point. Mrs Wentworth has stated, 'I ... direct people to professional help, in the first instance to police. Naming names in a parliament is a matter of last resort.'
Those who defend the use of parliamentary privilege argue that without it the rich and powerful might well avoid public exposure of their misconduct.

4. Parliamentarians who make inaccurate and unfounded allegations pay a political price for doing so
It has been claimed that Senator Heffernan was politically punished when it was discovered that his allegations against Justice Kirby were inaccurate and that the senator should have been aware of their inaccuracy.
The senator was required by the Prime Minister to issue an apology and a retraction in parliament. He was also removed from his position of parliamentary secretary.
It has further been claimed that Mr Heffernan's credibility has been permanently damaged and that he will either not be reindorsed for a place on the Liberal Party's Senate ticket, or, if he should be allowed to stand for the Senate at the next election, that the electorate will reject him at the ballot box.
The Australian in its editorial of March 20, 2002, stated, 'Through his reckless abuse of parliamentary privilege in making an unsubstantiated and squalid attack on Justice Kirby, it is Senator Heffernan's career that is now finished ... it is the senator who has failed the test of public trust and political legitimacy.'
According to this line of argument, parliamentarians making false allegations will inevitably be discredited and will ultimately be dismissed by the electorate. Therefore, it is claimed, it is not necessary to impose further sanctions upon them.

5. Citizens already have a right of reply to allegations made about them within parliament
It has been argued that citizens are not without redress when accused of wrong doing by a parliamentarian under the protection of parliamentary privilege.
Since 1988, with the passage of the Parliamentary Privileges Act, citizens have been able to apply to have a reply to allegations made against them incorporated in the parliamentary record.

Further implications
This is a matter with significant implications.
Senator Heffernan's allegations against Justice Kirby are only the most recent in a series of similar allegations made in either state or federal parliament against prominent public figures. The fact that related allegations, when made without the protection of parliamentary privilege, have been successfully challenged in court suggests that accusations made in parliament are more reckless than those that are allowed outside it.
However, there appears no easy answer to this problem. It is true, as the Prime Minister, John Howard has suggested, that anyone who makes false or irresponsible accusations within parliament is likely to pay a high political price for so doing. The political fate of Deidre Grusovin and Franca Arena show that the punishment can be severe indeed for those believed to have made false or unsubstantiated allegations.
However, is such political punishment for those who appear to misuse parliamentary privilege enough? Does it restore the reputations of those who may have been wrongly accused? The answer to this is probably no.
It is difficult, however, to see an acceptable solution to the problem. We do not want to see our politicians too intimidated to raise matters that they believe are of public concern.
Melbourne QC Neil Brown, a former deputy leader of the federal Liberal Party, has made one of the most constructive proposals to ensure that parliamentary privilege is used responsibly, without impeding parliamentarians' freedom of speech. Mr Brown has proposed that before allegations of a sexual or personal nature are made within Parliament, the privileges committee should vet them. If a parliamentarian does not submit his or her allegations to the committee prior to airing them in the parliament, or if he or she does not abide by the recommendation(s) of the committee then that person should lose the protection of parliamentary privilege. This seems an effective means of ensuring that parliamentarians exercise their privilege appropriately.
There is another element of this current controversy that is of concern. Some critics have construed it as an attempt to reduce the independence of the judiciary. Senator Heffernan called for the establishment of a 'federal judicial commission' to investigate possible instances of judicial misbehaviour that would indicate judges were unfit to fulfil the demands of their office.
The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, echoed this call when calling for the establishment of 'protocols' to investigate allegations against judges. This idea appears to reflect a recommendation made some 18 months ago by the Australian Law Reform Commission. Without much more rigorous public debate it is difficult to know if there are in fact grounds for the establishment of such a protocol. It would be concerning if one were drawn up in the heated atmosphere generated by the allegations of Senator Heffernan.

Sources
The Age
15/3/02 page 14 editorial, 'A sorry abuse of privilege'
15/3/02 page 15 comment by Jenny Hocking, 'Heffernan's agenda fits Howard's plan'
17/3/02 page 19 comment by Ray Cassin, 'Time to address the system's thug addiction'
18/3/02 page 11 comment by Robert Manne, 'The descent of Howard'
20/3/02 page 4 comment by Michael Gordon, 'Verifying the truth was just a phone call away'
20/3/02 page 15 comment by Neil Brown, 'Running a house of ill repute'
24/3/02 page 8 analysis by Paul Heinrichs, 'Home on the range, where the guys are all loudly not gay'
25/3/02 page 15 comment by Christopher Pearson, 'Crean's conspiracy theory was insulting'

The Australian
16/3/02 page 19 analysis by Matt Price and Martin Chulov, 'Rough trade'
19/3/02 page 10 editorial, 'Howard wears opprobrium of Kirby affair'
19/3/02 page 10 cartoon by Nicholson
20/3/02 page 1 news item by Ian Henderson, Martin Chulov and Peter Wilson, 'Shamed Heffernan apologises'
20/3/02 page 1 comment by Mike Steketee, 'High ideals, but PM taking the low road to reform'
20/3/02 page 10 editorial, 'Don't throw out privilege with Heffernan'
20/3/02 page 10 cartoon by Nicholson
22/3/02 page 13 comment by Mike Steketee, 'PM's bad year about to get worse'
23/3/02 page 21 analysis by David Brearley and martin Chulov, 'Looking for Mr Badguy'

The Herald Sun
15/3/02 page 20 editorial, 'Double-edged sword'
15/3/02 page 20 comment by Jill Singer, 'Taking refuge in coward's castle'