I agree that in the long run failure to punish this sort of behaviour in governments leads to tears, but until it does don’t expect any electoral consequences – just look how long Jo B-P was around.

But surely this statement is manifestly untrue. O’Sullivan has become involved on one piece of indirect evidence and has not been heard in his defence – the point Rudd made. The government, on the other hand, has been directly implicated by countless pieces of evidence (including a fresh intel swag released today) and has had ample opportunities to reply, and in any event on classical westminster principles of accountability Downer, and probably also Vaile, should have resigned by now.

I don’t know about the “cynical disregard”, not having the “punter” telepathy everyone else seems possessed by, and nor do I get why this matters in any event, since there is no election due. Moreover, nor can I see what is wrong with the “political gotcha!” being what this is all about. Isn’t it what it is all about? What else could or should it be about?

For those who are following the matter closely, and many obviously are, regardless of what “the punters” are apparently thinking, the matter goes straight to the integrity of the government, about which there have been serious and accumulating questions ever since the Dubai affair.

No surprise at all. It’s politics as usual with all that entails. Kevin Rudd last night was asked by Tony Jones if he’d call for the resignation of Paul O’sullivan from head of ASIO after the allegations made to Cole about O’Sullivan coaching AWB execs to evade Volcker. Showing a sudden affection for due process, Rudd opined that this was a most serious matter, not to be taken lightly, outcome of which should await further enquiry, one step at a time blah, blah. Why is the allegation about the Head of ASIO not an immediate hanging offence when he seeks to hang rministers on far less evidence?

Obviously, it’s not politically useful.

Why is there a cynical disregard for the political process? Because people assume that outrage is confected, that moral indignation is trumped up and that the political gotcha! is what it’s all about.

Re Geoff’s point about the so-called punters, and leaving aside the mysterious ways and means by which everyone always has a lock on what these mythical creatures think, I am at something of a loss as to why this is assumed to be such a telling point, so telling that everyone keeps telling it to us? Is it to be assumed that politcs and policy should be determined by the number of talkback radio calls it attracts?

And of course AWB has been reduced to a bit part, partly because everyone knows its already gone, and partly because finding a crooked company is nowhere near as significant as finding a crooked government. What’s the surprise here?

BTW I agree that AWB is dead in water as a political issue likely to sway any votes, and that’s been the case for some considerable time. But that isn’t what concerns me. I actually DO think that maintaining or reconstructing some workable, transparent system of public accountability for politicians and public servants is a matter of vital concern.

The narrow, constipated view of the nature and scope of a royal commission and what a commissioner can properly seek, currently being advanced by Cole, significantly undermines that institution as an acountability vehicle. In the context of a government currently having control of both houses of parliament, thereby neating any possibility of a meaningful Senate committee enquiry, and with Howard having reduced Westminster notions of ministerial responsibility to an even bigger joke than they were in Keating’s latter period, Cole’s stance is especially disappointing. I’m intending to post again later today on that broader issue.

What does emerge, with blinding clarity, is that DFAT and the PM’s Office should have known what was going on and I suspect that the question of ministerial culpability will ultimately rest on a judgment around the degree of negligence therein rather than any “criminality” per se.

But I’m inclined to wait and see what finally emerges before rendering a final verdict. In the meantime, I’d be hesitant about ascribing corrupt motives to Cole, Ken.