Going out to dinner

may well be a regular occurrence for someone like a Prime Minister. It is possibly all too regular. It would certainly happen often. There would be those lunches and breakfasts and "coffee" as well. (Why is it never "tea"?)

It is not the fact that they go to these things. It is where they go and with whom they associate. Those things do matter.

My parents had to face this problem many times. They were part of "the floating population".  It was a term used to describe the people who were there for just a year or two by right of their occupation. They included occupations like teaching, banking, law enforcement and pastoral care. They were people who, by virtue of their occupations, were privy to confidences and a great deal of confidential information. 

In a small country community who you associated with mattered. Of course you talked with everyone but to whose homes did you go? It must often have been very difficult for my parents. It was sometimes difficult for us as children too. We were expected to be "friends" with everyone but not too friendly with anyone.  I am also aware I knew from a very early age about the need to keep quiet about all sorts of things. It was inevitable I would hear concerned parents talking to Mum or the Senior Cat. I was "not to say anything". Since then I have been privy to many more matters of concern than I care to think about. I have signed more than one document requiring me to remain quiet.

I have been thinking about all this as the media has been discussing a dinner attended last week by our Prime Minister. Questions have, rightly, been raised about it. Why did he accept an invitation to a meal at the home of a Chinese businessman whose father has been under review for tax fraud? Where was that very large donation actually coming from? What does the host want in return? 

Yes, there will be something they want in return. People do not donate large sums of money to anything without expecting something in return. It is particularly true of people in that position.

The Prime Minister is using an "I am/was not aware" sort of defence in relation to his attendance. That is nonsense. Prime Ministers have "minders". They are the staff employed to ensure that Prime Ministers and others like them do not accidentally or, worse, deliberately associate with someone who will embarrass the government. Past associations can be dealt with up to a point but the present ones matter. 

I would go so far as to suggest the present one does matter more than people realise. A million dollars for an evening's "work"? It will buy a lot of advertising come election time. It might not even appear like that in the donations list because it will have been divided among the other attendees. 

It is what they will want in return that we need to be concerned about. Yes, they will want something. Nothing is "free" in politics.