So, who started it?
Posted by Christopher Sheil on Sunday, March 18, 2007
The Howard government has frequently justified launching the now notoriously self-destructive “character” debate by suggesting that the mudslinging began with Kevin Rudd asking questions in parliament about Ron Walker. This justification, as regular Troppo readers know, has been vociferously pressed by the Currency Lad in ruining sundry threads. For clarity’s sake, it’s worth revisiting Hansard, for it discloses no justifying mudslinging in the questions raised by Mr Rudd or his frontbench, unless you count referring to Mr Walker as a former Liberal treasurer as throwing mud (which, at the rate things are going, it may become).
|
The basis of the opposition’s pre-mud questions were the facts that Australian Nuclear Energy was established on 1 June last year and the prime minister commissioned the Switkowski report to examine the future of nuclear power five days later, on 6 June. As her majesty’s loyal opposition, the ALP was dutifully probing as to whether there had been meetings with the company’s directors prior to the inquiry, on the one side, and whether the inquiry may have been fixed, on the other side. No personal allegations were made about the directors. There was no “mud” thrown upon their characters, or even the government members, on the issue. The questions raised legitimate issues going to the probity and integrity of the government’s nuclear energy policy, a matter of obvious public policy interest. In fact, Peter Costello began his now infamously self-immolating assault on Kevin Rudd at 2.18 pm on the Thursday by complaining that Labor had not thrown the mud he was anticipating:
For days now I have been hearing outside the chamber that I am going to be asked inside the chamber about what I knew about Mr Walkerâs company, Australian Nuclear Energy. Chris Bowen promised to ask me on 27 February, Peter Garrett promised to ask me. On 27 February the member for Jagajaga promised to ask me. The member for Grayndler said, âWe will be pursuing these questions both inside and outside the parliament over coming days.â I am pleased that the member for Canning finally did what the Labor Party did not. As I have already made public, Mr Ron Walker certainly told me that he was forming a company called Australian Nuclear Energyâjust as he told the Prime Minister … etc [my emphasis]
Hansard shows that the references to Mr Walker and the other Nuclear Energy directors supplied no justification for reciprocal government mudslinging. The ALP did not “start it”. Prior to reviewing Hansard, I had suspected the government must have received a tip-off about the prospective police raids on its Queensland members, and conjectured that it may have been throwing up an advance fog. Now that I have seen how extraordinarily disproportionate the attack on Rudd was when measured against the mentions of Walker, I have heightened suspicions about the probity of the government’s dealings with this company. In the public interest, we can only hope that the opposition will resume its completely proper questioning on this important matter … when the mud clears.
[Read Hansard (pdf) and prove me wrong: Tuesday; Wednesday; Thursday]
This entry was posted on Sunday, March 18th, 2007 at 4:45 PM and filed under Politics - national.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Apologies. Comments and trackbacks are both currently closed.
Having watched proceedings that day, one simple question arose: Ian McFarlane mumbled and stumbled and absolutely botched his obfuscation of the question asked to him, Labor pursuied… about five times, same terrible botching.. and then, when asked for the sixth or so, McFarlane came straight out with a denial “no, I did not meet them.” The question is why did McFarlane feel the need to try to obfuscate, when if he was so adamant in the end he could simply have answered that at first?
Those terrible attempts at obfuscation made the whole thing stink, which Labor obviously smelled, and went for it. That pissed the incumbents off, along with the then obvious futile and ridiculous obfuscation attempts (making the incumbents look bloody silly), pissing them off more, Howard recaptured and cleaned it up for them very well, but the tone was set for the intensity of Costello’s outburst.
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 6:13 pm | Permalinkthe tone was set for the intensity of Costello
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 6:52 pm | PermalinkI think that’s very fair, Chris. McFarlane could have answered the first question with the straight out denial, and that would have been it. That’s the key point.
The Coalition looked right and proper idiots as McFarlane looped along, which drew genuine and raucous laughter from Labor. It was very sad, actually, all round. But the Coalition was mightily pissed off and looking very poor.
Press reports said Howard went up to McFarlane long into the farce and told him just to “deny it”.
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 7:00 pm | PermalinkI think there’s some value in entertaining the consequences of a connection between the current Government and a (even possible) Nuclear Power company.
Just posing the consequences of such a connection: it would whiteant the Coalition’s agenda to put Nuclear Power on the table for a start, and could, conceivably, bring the Government down.
Hence, it is Labor’s interests to want to go a hunting, and, if the Coalition is squeaky clean on it, they’d be rightly pissed off at an insinuation. Certainly, their reaction is unexplainable, as far as it got that day (and since), and would not point to squeaky clean, but that’s not to say there’s impropriety.
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 7:16 pm | Permalink“extraordinarily disproportionate the attack on Rudd”
Sure was/is. Does make you wonder what they are trying to distract the voter’s attention from.
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 7:17 pm | PermalinkRudd-hugging nonsense, Chris. Costello was being sarcastic because McFarlane and Howard were being slimed by the attack Womble (I watched the answer) whereas the Opposition frontbench was hanging off the Treasurer. (Probably knowing their fantasy would be mauled into oblivion). Having started the mud-slinging with baseless and eventually abandoned codswallop about Australian Nuclear Energy colluding with the Prime Minister and the resources minister to derange the impartial governance of the nation, the government reciprocated by asking the reasonable questions it did about Ratty Rudd’s multiple meetings with his friend – the convicted criminal and influence-peddler, Brian Burke.
McFarlane was not obfuscating; nobody – State or Federal – in that portfolio could not have met or spoken with one or all of these businessmen. Mindful of his parliamentary responsibility not to mislead, he battled through to differeniate speaking with these gentlemen from having colluded with these gentlemen. As much trouble as he has making himself heard in the House, he didn’t chicken out like Rudd to the press room. Unlike both Howard and McFarlane, the Opposition Leader retreated to the press to whom he lied about the multiple accidental meetings with impunity. Subsequently, Don’s Sibling No.1 had a knee-wobbling emotional meltdown about the big meanies returning those piles of mud that he began throwing in the first place. Chief Big Sis, Julia, was also despatched to stick up for our now shakey boy-wonder.
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 8:40 pm | PermalinkCurrency, if you check, I don’t think the Reps was telecast on Thursday as it was the senate’s turn. I watched the earlier day with MacFarlane, but only listened to the Thursday, as you must have as well. Funny thing the old memory, eh?
The Hansard links are there Currency. Find and quote the “mud-slinging with baseless and eventually abandoned codswallop about Australian Nuclear Energy.” I’ve read it all. There’s no mudslinging there old buddy. Please do everyone a favour and either put up or shut up.
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 8:50 pm | PermalinkThe memory sure is a funny old thing, Chris. When it’s the “Senate’s turn”, Question Time in the House is taped and BROADCAST AT NIGHT by the ABC. I watched Costello’s justified return-of-fire late that night/early the following morning. Note well Christopher’s grasp and explanation of events, dear readers.
The conspiratorial allegations that were made about improper, if not unlawful, collusion between the Secret Nuclear Businessmen and the PM and Mr McFarlane certainly constituted mud-slinging and were entirely baseless. Unless I’m mistaken, the Secret Nuclear Businessmen Conspiracy Theory has now been officially dropped by Mr Rudd.
Can’t give you a link to a Rudd-Burke transcript, Chris, but we know the two men didn’t accidentally run into one another and we know Rudd bolted from the House to smother the details in a thick coating of tendentious whitewash.
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 9:21 pm | PermalinkSo there’s no actual Secret Nuclear Businessmen Conspiracy Theory mud-slinging CL? Apart from what you’ve made up for us here? Not that I care if there isn’t. Your mud-slinging is vastly more entertaining than anything coming out of parliament. And I get an email feed. Troppo’s customer interface has it all over Hansard.
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 10:16 pm | PermalinkFair enough Currency. You watched the less reliable edited version, not the full live version I listened to.
As wbb says, the rest of it, you’ve made up entirely by yourself. Quote the evidence. Go on. Prove that I lie. Put up or shut up.
Incidentally, now I’m wondering if it’s you who in fact suspects the conspiracy you speak of so constantly. Is this a case of guilt transference and projection? Given the coincidence of dates, I think it’s conceivable that the company got advance notice and a green light on the inquiry. Not that the company reps are to blame, for they’re only chasing dollars as usual. All the questions, here and by the ALP in parliament, concern only the government.
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 10:47 pm | PermalinkCurrency’s last comment has been deleted. If he wishes to repeat it, or if anyone else wishes to discuss whether tim blair is a real or fake turkey, the matter has been addressed in the update to this earlier thread. Discipline, pls.
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 10:56 pm | PermalinkUnder C.L’s assertions and from his perspective, Rudd kicked off and the Coalition lost two one, and he’s upset about the kick off. That’s understandable.
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 11:04 pm | PermalinkRudd started the mud-slinging with his baseless innuendos about the honesty of the businessmen involved in his weird conspiracy theory. That’s not in dispute. What we also know is that these forays were fended off in the Parliament, whereas Mr Rudd weazled out when he was under pressure.
Now Chris, please provide evidence of what Rudd and Burke spoke about. Demonstrate that they were really surprised to see one another on those three different occasions – the occasions where Ratty flew across the country just to chat with Burkey about, y’know, the weather ‘n stuff.
Put up or shut up.
And Costello’s answer was not “edited”, though I know you’ve got to rely on some red herring after your wrong inference that I couldn’t have watched the exchange that I did indeed watch and which was, indeed, broadcast. Get tired of mud-slinging, Chris? Notice how hardly anyone comments on these posts? Why not move on to policy? Or are you and Kevvie waiting for the National Conference to actually present you with some?
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 11:17 pm | Permalink(1) There is no transcript evidence in Hansard of Rudd making a “conspiracy theory”, weird or otherwise. (2) There is no transcript of any meetings with Burke, unlike Hansard, and you are clearly being absurd. (3) All but live broadcasts of parliament are edited in accordance with guidelines.
Notice how hardly anyone comments on these posts?
This is a post specially for you to put up or shut up, Currency, as a custom-made service to you and for you, and to save all other Troppo posts from having to worry about it ever again (unless you can put up, of course).
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 11:27 pm | PermalinkLooks like nobody can be bothered downloading Hansard. I certainly can’t. But the onus is on you CL to provide evidence that Rudd slung the mud. For the moment, people reading this thread have no choice but to assume that he merely asked pertinent questions about what the PM and Australia Nuclear Energy P/L had discussed re future projects nuclear. If they discussed nothing, then fair question dealt with.
The understanding however, seems to be that Howard reheated the Burke business to deflect attention from these questions. If so, why?
This theory may be wrong, but. Howard may have wanted to start the Burke crap to deflect attention from a very stale, lack-lustre, mean and tricky government on its last legs.
Private discussions with nuclear power companies are probably not the worst of this governments failings.
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 11:39 pm | PermalinkLooks like nobody can be bothered downloading Hansard.
That’s what Christopher banked on, William. The three links are to THE SENATE – not the place for readers to search for examples of how Rudd was knowingly pursuing a slime-job conspiracy theory that named Walker, his Liberal Party connections and secret meetings in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Try the Lower House, brother.
Tuesday, 27 February. [PDF]
Nothing, as it happens. Still, it was the theme of the day – the whole day.
Note that McFarlane had already denied such “secret discussions” when this question was asked – under pain of misleading the House.
Come Thursday, the Treasurer returned fire: why had Mr Rudd had secret discussions with convicted criminal Brian Burke and what did they discuss?
We still don’t know. Boy Kevvie ran panic-stricken from the chamber, to which he would not give an account of himself, as he had insisted Mr McFarlane do.
One word: dingo.
Again, Chris: very Ruddian to send people on a wild goose chase to the Senate.
Consider yourself proved wrong.
Posted on 19-Mar-07 at 12:40 am | PermalinkApologies for the links Currency. My mistake. I saved the transcripts on my computer before I read them. Seeing nothing about mudslinging, I decided to whip up a post, and then went back to the net for the links – and obviously didn’t look closely when I did. No-one else has noticed because no-one else gives a shit. You should be grateful for me. But I will fix them promptly, all the same. Re your evidence, that’s a good Lad. Now, let’s see:
Mr Rudd: My question is to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. I refer to the minister
Posted on 19-Mar-07 at 1:10 am | PermalinkWell, that’s just truly pathetic.
First, I haven’t “omitted” anything. It’s a PDF file and I can’t cut and paste the whole of Hansard for that day. Of course McFarlane was wary about saying he had met with Walker, point blank. Lots of people have met with Ron Walker. The PM pointed out later that he saw Mr Rudd talking with Walker and Steve Bracks at the soccer! Rudd and Bracksy are involved too, are they – incarnated as “non-legal personalities”? Here lies, in fact, one aspect of the dirtiness of Rudd: he knew perfectly well that he could easily create an impression that simply meeting with Ron Walker on any basis could allow him, and perhaps observers, to call into question the two men’s probity. McFarlane strung him along amusedly/confusedly and then put him out of his misery. Rudd ignored his reply when it came and then went on to talk of “secret discussions” that were – or could be construed as being, in the absence of explanation – untoward. The Opposition Leader had already been assured there were no “secret discussions”. Because Rudd’s question was based on a premise which the Minister had already obviated, Abbott correctly asked Mr Speaker to rule the question out of order. Mr Speaker – as he has a wont to do – allowed it anyway and the PM thanked Rudd according to the courteous cliches of House etiquette.
So: Rudd suggested a conspiracy, he named an honourable man in that extremely unflattering connection and he implied – nay, asserted – that McFarlane, Walker, Howard et alia were involved in something nefarious, perhaps unlawful. And so the examination of our public officials and “secret discussions” moved on to Mr Rudd himself on Thursday, he himself having introduced the muddy theme. He still won’t reveal the subject matter of his own “secret discussions” – with a convicted criminal who was under a WA Labor ban.
Posted on 19-Mar-07 at 1:53 am | PermalinkWow! You guys sure are thin-skinned these days. I hope you make it to polling day. I predict full meltdown if Rudd ever accuses the government to being “morally and politically compromised.”
Your partisanship blinds you Currency, and I speak admittedly as having something of a partisan interest in this race. But man … may I never get like you guys.
You left out the one bit in the middle, and the end of the second question. Hardly the whole pdf; you would have had to have made an effort to miss both of them.
Anyway, you have it arse up, of course. This was question time as usual, enlived by the fact that the opposition actually got an admission, of sorts. The minister had been with the directors, and he didn’t rule out discussing nuclear reactors, only that he hadn’t seen a proposal yet.
At this point, the ALP faced an implicit decision. Would it seek to capitalise on a six question fiasco to get an admission, and use this instance to attempt to assault the minister’s character more generally – that is, would they use the stalling/grudging admission/failure-to-rule-out debacle to mudsling? Or not?
As it happened, Rudd turned away from any suggestion of character assassination to use the admission as a basis for raising a policy matter with the pm. Macfarlane’s incompetence was discretely assumed, and, in a gesture of sensitivity to his abject humiliation, not focused upon.
But hey, look, I’m sincerely convinced that you guys are hurting. My tip is, lighten up. There are still months to go, and it’s only politics anyway.
Posted on 19-Mar-07 at 2:10 am | PermalinkI didn’t make an effort to omit anything, Chris. You, though, made an effort to refer your readers to the wrong House of Parliament. Which is pretty bold. I’m grateful for the quotes you brought out of the Question Time we’re talking about, though it’s difficult to make much sense out of the ornate construction you’re placing on them.
Rudd started the mud throwing and introduced all of those very themes whose pursuit by Costello he would later whine about: secret meetings, conspiracy, imprudent and/or unlawful collusion, dissembling in explanation.
Game over.
Posted on 19-Mar-07 at 2:55 am | PermalinkWhat a rich discussion.
But there
Posted on 19-Mar-07 at 5:54 am | PermalinkC.L., it’s sensational to see your comments working through an issue, rather than just slamming the same comments down. It’s bloody great.
When this thing started, having been listening to the live stream broadcast of it, it was MacFarlane’s obfuscation on the first question which caught my interest and sensing something was up stopped and watched the whole thing live.
I’ve just gone back to the transcript, mate, if that’s not obfuscation, nothing is. Seriously.
Secondly, I know you see it differently, but MacFarlane through that behaviour gave every impression he was hiding something. Rudd was right to continue questioning. He was not casting aspersions, though you may regard it that way, he was, to my eyes and ears was simply trying to get a straight answer out of an alarmingly dodgy respondent.
MacFarlane’s responses were so bad, live, that I wondered if he’d been trying to copy or emulate the PM’s obfuscatory methods all of a sudden and proved he was an incompetent actor, let alone unsure of how to obfuscate himself! Poor bastard.
“Yes or no!” people were asking – that’s all he had to say.
Instead, he gave the clear impression through his alarmingly dodgy responses that something was up. That’s where it all started!
Had MacFarlane given a straight answer, the questioning would have continued and if there was no impropriety, Rudd could well have come off second best. Witness Howard’s scrubbing the floor with Garrett over the latter’s question about turning the house lights off for the world environmental hour – there was no substance to the question, it was an attempt at a cheap shot, and Garrett looked a total dill. If there was nothing to the meeting, no hint of backroom discussion on a matter of national importance, then the media would not have given it a run other than to call Rudd a cheap shot, if at all.
It was MacFarlane’s performance which stunk the house. This set off the whole train of events. In view of the national discussion: we still haven’t got back to what discussions were had and why.
(Perhaps, given the severity of impropriety if there was that, it’s far better for the Government to lose two ministers than get caught out in a Nuclear Power Affair and lose the lot – so good has that line of questioning been put to rest).
Thirdly, MacFarlane admitted (correct me if I’m wrong) as far as I can see, only not having met with members of the company. Wasn’t there discussion or mention that the company hadn’t been formed on the dates in question? That doesn’t mean he didn’t meet with those three businesspeople in relation to a matter of national importance, only that he got, it seems, a prodding from the wily Howard as to how to stop the QT farce.
C.L., if you don’t understand the importance of asking those sorts of questions, which are in the national interest, then this may not go anywhere. If the players were reversed, your comments would be whitehot and blistering. The public genuinely have a right to know how the Howard Government is going about its nuclear agenda.
That MacFarlane was alarmingly dodgy sent this thing skyward. No wonder the Government were wanting to go Rudd, if not at least, to take the heat off where Rudd’s questions were going and what shocking response he got.
Fourthly, for goodness sake, what can you provide that isn’t silly which is of clear national interest or importance about Rudd meeting Burke?
Fifthly, sad we’re down to this, but how do you possibly regard the two issues in question – how the Howard Government is going about its Nuclear Power push for the Australian Nation, and Kevin Rudd who wasn’t even Opposition Leader meeting with Brian Burke – how do you possibly regard them to be in the same class of weight?
Posted on 19-Mar-07 at 6:38 am | PermalinkWherever I go on the Internet I only see partisanship and little regarding sensible discussion. It is obvious who the two main proponents are here and on which side they stand.
The media reported both the Walker stuff and the Burke stuff. The Burke stuff got more traction. The media started it. To say either side started it is electoral political one upmanship.
As it stands normal people don’t care about either issue one way or the other, only political pundits are going to make a hullabaloo out of it.
Posted on 19-Mar-07 at 6:56 am | PermalinkThe Ron Walker stuff was definitely designed to try and frame the government’s energy policies in alignment with narrow – hopefully corrupt – corporate interests. If successfully played it could optimally lock in the corrupt corporate negative energy thing with the supposed widespread fear of “nucular energy” as Albo amusingly calls it. He and Jenny Macklin periodically try to frighten Shire voters with the menacing horror of Lucas Heights, and the opposition tactic here has been to obfuscate on any reasoned examination of the topic in favour of the Hanrahan Solution.
But, I’m not sure why anyone would think that this is “mud-slinging” per se. I never thought it had strategic legs given Howard’s oft and long expressed enthusiasm for nuclear power. It was always going to be difficult to prove why he would have to be “covert” about something that he warmly embraces, but surely it’s entirely legitimate for the ALP to have a go at so doing. It also had the added bonus of exposing Ian Mcfarlane as a tactics-free zone. It’s less the gloopy slap of mud connecting, that I recall and more the sound of bullets entering feet.
Posted on 19-Mar-07 at 7:47 am | PermalinkIt’s very interesting, as a matter for the country, as to where this thing started.
The whole thing went skywards with MacFarlane’s alarmingly dodgy response to a question of national interest.
The more I think about the consequences of a Nuclear Power Affair hitting Australian politics, the more it makes me wonder whether the Burke affair and its consequences for the Coalition Government was maybe a good thing for it. Wild stuff, this. But it’s feasible. Howard tossed Campbell to keep the Burke affair alive. Wham, focus on Campbell, focus on the problems of the Government. Keep at anything but a Nuclear Power Affair. Was the Campbell tossing also a bit of a media red herring, away from the Nuclear Power questions?
That Costello and Howard sold Campbell the dump and then crash tackled him themselves may have been all illusion! Campbell may have been turned into the bloody football, to be hurriedly booted over the stands and out of that stadium….
Posted on 19-Mar-07 at 7:51 am | PermalinkI wouldn’t have called Rudd’s questions “mud-slinging”, but muck-raking, and this whole debate over “who started it” is just snivelling childishness, petulant foot-stamping temper-tantrums. Was Rudd a little off-handedly snide? Well, if there’s anything admirable about the behaviour exhibited in Parliament, particularly during Question Time, it’s as often the force applied in argumentation as the wit used to defuse or deflect, rather than the obfuscation of ministers hiding nothing we didn’t know already. Question Time is a worthless excerise for anything other than the questions.
Posted on 20-Mar-07 at 8:54 am | Permalink