Never admit to a word when she say, and if she claim, ah, you tell her, "baby, no way"...

It was Slate writer Josh Levin who first coined the term “Shaggy defence” in 2008, in regards to the trial of R. Kelly at the time. The titular Shaggy referred to is Jamaican reggae musician Shaggy, behind the 2000 hit song “It Wasn’t Me”. In the track, after a friend of Shaggy’s is caught cheating by his girlfriend, Shaggy offers some sage advice – deny, deny, deny.

She caught you on the counter? It wasn’t me! She caught you kissing on the sofa? It wasn’t me! She even caught you on camera? It wasn’t me! The punchline of the song, of course, being that such advice is clearly nonsensical and ineffective. If someone sees something right in front of their own eyes, simply denying it will do you no good.

Therefore, the “Shaggy defence” refers to the strategy employed of simply denying, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. And we’ve heard nothing but that from Commonwealth Party leader 12MaxWild since my announcement that I would be referring him to the Australian Federal Police and the National Integrity Commissioner over his texts to New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

The case is simple – after failing to gain New Zealand’s approval for adding a military component to the CANZUK deal, I believe 12MaxWild attempted to employ blackmail, by threatening tariffs to Ardern unless she agreed to the CANZUK deal. This is because, as is indisputable fact, Ardern received a text message from 12MaxWild stating in no uncertain terms “sign the deal or CANZIRES will be vetoed immediately and we will place tariffs on your goods”.

And so what was his response? “It wasn’t me!”

Yes, despite the fact that text messages from 12MaxWild have been released making a serious diplomatic threat against a close ally, he insists he had absolutely nothing to do with it, saying it was the work of “a disgruntled former aide”. Who is this aide? How did they gain access to the phone of the deputy Prime Minister? We do not know.

Indeed, when asked by Pitchfork News journalist Alison Brooks for evidence to the claim, he pointed to the fact that the message was received by a text, despite the two “always negotiating in person”, and that he later told Ardern that an aide had sent the message.

The latter is completely irrelevant – all it proves is that after the fact Max insisted that he did not send the text. The former is slightly more compelling, but given Ardern withdrew herself from in-person negotiations relating to CANZUK, what other way exactly would there have been to contact her?

To be sure, it is not impossible that an aide sent the message. Such a fact would not vindicate 12MaxWild fully, but it would mean he is unlikely to be criminally liable. But when the evidence suggesting that an aide sent the message is essentially “I don’t usually text”, what conclusion is a reasonable person supposed to come to?

12MaxWild’s supposed evidence is paper-thin. Any reasonable person can see that, at the very least, this case warrants further investigation to hold any responsible individuals to account for wrongdoing.

Yet, not only is 12MaxWild denying it was him with close to no evidence, he is denying that the acts were criminal! He has stated that “even if I did send these messages [...] I would not be in breach of any laws.” What evidence has he provided for this? None. Has he rebutted any elements of the detailed statement released this morning alleging serious criminal wrongdoing? Of course not.

And with that, his supporters went on the offensive. A piece from Commonwealth Times writer Malcolm Tucker stated that the claims had been “publicly debunked”, that there was “no credible evidence suggesting any wrongdoing”, and added (again with zero evidence) that even if Max had done what was claimed, the criminal act alleged would not apply to him. (I also note, but refuse to dignify by further addressing, the comments in this article made by the pathetic and contemptible fag standing for the Senate.)

12MaxWild claims that I am using my “legal powers to sway voters”, and additionally alleges that I am corrupt, threatening to refer me to the ICAC. All of this is, needless to say, completely untrue – any person may refer information to the AFP and ICAC. I don’t doubt my opinion, as this nation’s chief law officer, may carry extra weight, but there are no special powers I possess to prosecute an individual. If the AFP and ICAC truly believe there is no grounds for investigation, I will accept that, as they are independent bodies with their own powers.

And if 12MaxWild truly believes that any actions I have committed raise issues of corruption, and is not just throwing around baseless allegations for deflection, then per Section 44 of the National Integrity Commission (Time for an ICAC) Act 2020, he is obligated to refer it to the National Integrity Commissioner. I won’t hold my breath.

Returning to the initial paragraph of this article, the Shaggy defence was coined initially to refer to the tactic employed in the defence of the 2008 R. Kelly case. It was ultimately successful – in a sense. For Kelly is now in custody awaiting sentencing, with an indictment alleging that the 2008 decision was corruptly won.

To be absolutely clear, I do not mean in any way to suggest that 12MaxWild’s alleged offences are in any way comparable to what Kelly has been accused and convicted of. But their strategies in the face of serious allegations against them are very similar – deny, deny, deny. It is a disturbing strategy that completely rejects fact in favour of deflection. He makes an improbable claim, and it becomes truth, and those seeking accountability and justice are painted as out-of-control wannabe dictators.

I have made it very clear that, based off the information I have, I believe 12MaxWild committed a criminal offence. My word is not that of a court, and I do not believe 12MaxWild should be prosecuted off my word alone. Instead, I have sought to refer this information to the relevant authorities so they may investigate.

It is indisputable that a threat of diplomatic blackmail was sent from 12MaxWild’s phone to Ardern. Such evidence is deeply compelling and worthy of further investigation by the Australian Federal Police and Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Australia, will you accept “it wasn’t me” as an answer to the very disturbing possibility that a deputy Prime Minister of this nation may have violated criminal law, or will you elect that man to government again and risk him blackmailing foreign leaders?