I'm sure there wouldn't be shortage of people who would disagree with my assessment.
If the proxy funding was for a person who had your views or would support policies view, would it still be considered treachery or an act unbecoming of a concern Australian citizen and former Prime Minister?
We know from history that broadcasters can have a significant impact on politics, hence why we cannot under any circumstance have a country's media industry dominated by or two players, particular if the two players political views or agendas are aligned. There should be a regular review on the media industry to make sure there is no monopoly or complicity on steering news and information. The review should cover all players public and private and the free flow of accurate information is the foundation of democracy.
PR campaign or not it was wrong for them to be removed by their political parties in the way they had been. It was undemocratic to say the least and it should never be permitted to happen again. If a PM were to be removed mid-term, we should have a public vote of no confidence and voters should be the only ones with the right to remove an elected PM.
Both are also smart enough to know they can still be politically active and have influence without being beholden to a political party. Sometimes your chosen party is influenced by forces you may not like or agree with, we see that within the factions of major political parties. Sometimes its better to be on the sideline where you have the freedom to support policies you like and attack those you don't, without the political backlash.
