Comments on: Was Bob Brown offered $1 mil media bribe?

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:00:23 +0000

Firstly how do you actually quantify “$1m bribe of free media coverage”? By advertising rates? Q ratings movement? or by some subtle and confusing Media Monitors onscreen minutes and column inches weighted by ratings algorithm?

Secondly, no one these days blatantly offers money to federal Australian pollies for services to be rendered. We’re not the UK, US or France. It’s all done here within a much smaller pool of interconnected players who know the value of an elliptical long lunch conversation to build mateship zaibatsus. Bob probably only woke up only the other day going “Holy shit! They were trying to bribe me back then and I never realised it until now!”

Thirdly, regardless of what you think of Bob Brown’s politics and policies, there’s no doubt he’s a pretty smart and politically shrewd bloke.

So fourthly, one could assume he’s playing some games here with a very specific target, using the media to send a public but deniable message.

Or fifthly, maybe like many pollies he’s just gone a little bit whacko after too many years in the job. It’s not a sanity-inducing trade you know.

By: James Farrell

James Farrell — Thu, 22 May 2008 13:56:21 +0000

In any case, it’s not always necessarily appropriate for an official to name the person who bribed or threatened him, if he’s making a general point about corruption and whether the existing rules and procedures are enough to discourage it. That is, his interest might be in improving governance, increasing accountability, protecting whistle blowers and so on, and the point of the anecdote is to highlight the problem, rather than to punish one particular offender.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Thu, 22 May 2008 13:36:07 +0000

Thanks SWIO – that’s the missing link. I’m happy to resume my previous position of assuming that Brown is not a liar.

By: FDB

FDB — Thu, 22 May 2008 00:57:07 +0000

I’ve never seen him credibly exposed as anything but honest and consistent. I suppose it’s ad hominem then, but I believe him.

By: swio

swio — Wed, 21 May 2008 11:16:18 +0000

Bob Brown explained that point in an interview on ABC that he doesn’t believe in using parliamentary privelege to make statements he could not make in public. Having seen that privelege abused at times he might have a point. It is actually testable as to whether he believes in that principal. He has been in the Senate long enough that the Hansard could be checked to see if he has used parliamentary privelege.

By: pablo

pablo — Mon, 19 May 2008 09:14:09 +0000

I recall writing to Bob Brown in late 2000 with a major concern I had with the misuse of government funded employment programs. I never got a reply so I guess that if this occurred in 2002 and he is only now responding then I should not hold my breath for a prior whistle blow. I just hope he comes through this time.