There are few issues of public interest that have aggravated me as much as the recent defenestration of Peter Costello. I say this because he has been the victim of a great injustice. Not the least significant element of this injustice is that although there are so many people who could and should have come forward to support him, none seem to have done so. It is only to be hoped that one day he will throw some light on the internal media and political machinations that led to his resignation as chairman of Nine Media and the lack of any protest at what has been done to him. Until then, all that I can do is highlight the issues that have emerged. What is it, then, that aggravates me so much about this issue? And what lessons can we learn from it?

First, there was the pile-on. It was very quickly assumed, but not by me, that Costello had been guilty of some offence in colliding with a so-called journalist who had blocked his way and that it deserved severe punishment. Leaving aside the question of whether any punishment at all was merited, you would think that there would at least be some sort of balanced debate on just how serious the alleged offence was and what, if any, penalty he should pay. In particular, you could reasonably have expected that both of these questions would be answered with some sort of balance. But instead of balance and proportionality, we were treated to an hysterical overreaction that virtually said he had murdered the whinging scribe. The reaction from the media and political elite was completely out of proportion. The demand was that he had perpetrated such a monumental offence that he should be forced to resign from the significant office he held as chairman of Nine and even, according to some variations, that he should resign as chair of the Future Fund. It was mob justice, pure and simple. The lesson: when the mob starts baying for blood, don’t expect that you will be treated with fairness.

There was no need for this pile-on.

On any test, Costello had made a monumental contribution to Australia as treasurer, chair of the Future Fund and in the corporate sector. This did not entitle him to special protection. But it did entitle him to have his record of achievement put into balance against the excessive and unreasonable punishment being demanded. As this was not done, Australia has been denied, albeit temporarily I hope, the services of a distinguished Australian.

Secondly, it soon became apparent that his offence (assuming that any offence had been committed) was being used as a proxy excuse in the internal dispute within the Nine enterprise itself, none of which was caused by Costello himself. Thus, we had a torrent of leaks from anonymous sources (described collectively as ‘Nine executives’) who clearly thought that if they could get rid of Costello they would divert attention from their own mismanagement of the company. Their message in the leaks was clearly: ‘Costello must go, for the good of the company.’ What they really meant was that Costello should be thrown to the wolves to save their own skins. So they jumped on the opportunity to discredit their own chairman for their own salvation, which they did with immense enthusiasm. Worse still, they got away with this subterfuge; they kept their jobs (so far) but Costello lost his. The lesson, at least to company chairmen: in a crisis, don’t expect your own employees (even if they rejoice in the title of executives) to be loyal or at least to shut up when they should.

Thirdly, there is the alleged offence itself. In the rush to judgment, everyone seems to have overlooked the rights and wrongs of what actually happened. It has been assumed that Costello committed some sort of offence or that he at least denied the photo-journalist his rights. I disagree. So far as it is possible for an outsider to assess what actually happened, there was a collision that occurred when Costello was walking through the airport to his waiting car and his path was blocked, which is against the law. He had every right to walk on and to assume that others would act consistently with that right, as thousands of people do every day at airports and on the streets. So the collision was obviously caused not by Costello but by the journalist who blocked his path and did not get out of the way when he should have. Yet from this obvious explanation, Costello has been wrongly presented as the offender. My complaint about this is not simply that he has been branded as the transgressor when he should not be, but that no one has asked: why do we exempt from all responsibility the very person who actually caused the collision? The lesson: don’t assume that because you are acting lawfully, the law will protect you when the baying mob brands you guilty.

Finally, he was in effect dumped by the hierarchy of the Liberal party. Not one of his former colleagues has come forward, if not to defend him, then at least to support him, to offer a word of comfort or balance in an intensely personal and embarrassing situation. This is not a hagiography of Costello, but his record of service to the Liberal party surely deserved some expression of support from those he had supported and worked with for so long. They could at least have said that Costello is, (not was, but is) a person of good character and principle and that this should be brought into balance. If it is too late now, at least future generations will hopefully read this and make a more balanced judgment than the one that apparently led others to remain silent, as they did. The lesson: in politics, don’t rely on your colleagues.

As things stand at the present, Costello was more sinned against than sinning.