A Swan dive – or a Rudderless goverment

I have been reading lots of version of the Ute-gate (although the tailgate line from Tim Blair is pretty funny too). From what I can see the basics are:

  • Rudd and Swan were asked if the acted on behalf of they car dealer John Grant to get assistance from the government OzCar scheme. They both denied it in parliament
  • There is supposedly an email from the PM’s office to Goodwin Grech (Treasury official in charge of OzCar) that “alerted” him to Grant’s case
  • The email may or may not exist. News Ltd seem to have changed their story from having the email to having it read to them
  • Turnbull has made a big thing of the email from the PM’s office
  • Emails and faxes have been tabled the do implicate Swann’s office that involve Grant

The text of the email is (from smh.com.au):

Hi Goodwin. The PM has asked if the car dealer financing vehicle is available to assist a Queensland dealership. John Grant Motors, who seems to be having trouble getting finance. If you can followup on this ASAP that would be very useful. Happy to discuss. A

So as I see it, if the email is true then Rudd misled parliament and must resign. If it is false then Turnbull is the one in big trouble. But either way – it looks like Swan did mislead parliament – which means that we have to have a spectacular Swan dive.

Let’s bring all the discussion over here.

Advertisements

472 Responses

  1. Just looooove the topic title.

  2. Just reading some breaking news, Turnbull has just made a statement and seems to be changing from gunning for Rudd to gunning for Swan. And he also seems to be distancing himself from the email:

    Mr Turnbull said on Saturday that the coalition did not provide the email to the media or fabricate the email itself.

    “I don’t have a copy of the email,” Mr Turnbull told reporters in Sydney on Saturday.

    “The email was not provided to (the media) by anyone in the opposition.”

    He also said the coalition had nothing to do with the origin of the email.

    “The email was not composed by anybody in the Liberal Party – it was not composed by anyone in the opposition.

    “It was not provided to The Telegraph by anybody in the opposition.”

    Sorry Malcolm – you made a big thing about the email, you accused the PM of lying to parliament. Will you resign?

  3. If Trunchbull is relying on Grech, I think Rudd and Swan can start ordering the eggs. The man has changed his story like other people change their underwear.

    Trunchbull should also consider AWB, phone cards, children overboard and the Haneef affair if he wants to start in on the corruption and misleading parliament track. After all, his mob still need to be brought to book for that little lot.

  4. I just read over on Larvatus Prodeo a suggestion that the whole thing has been orchestrated by Gillard so she gets the top job.

    It’s incredible just how much wishful thinking drives people when the govt of their choice is not in power.

  5. Joni, agree. And I was under the impression that the Libtards were in possession of a copy, from what has been reported. I’m now wondering if Grech has been pressured by Trunchbull; he’s obviously prepared to threaten public servants as his behaviour with Andrew Charlton indicates.

    joni: thanks Jane – just realised I spelt Grech’s name wrongly… will correct it.

  6. jane,

    “Trunchbull”. I see what you did there; what a mildly amusing play-on-words.

  7. Daphon..hadn’t thought of that one.

    Maybe it’s a matter of being careful what one wishes for (same as the defence dept which now has Faulkner and Combet instead of Fitzgibbon)..one could end up with Gillard as PM.

  8. Slight diversion:

    Someone mentioned Bill Heffernan and his false allegations against Justice Kirby. How did Heffernan ever survive that and remain in parliament?

  9. Jane, the AWB thing has already had a Royal Commission, are you suggesting that this be superseded by a Right Royal Commission?

    This government will not open up any other investigations into the behaviour of the last government as this is not how it’s done…if the code of silence was broken by both sides of politics then we would have an accountable system of governance.

    There is damning evidence against the Treasurer and one would be pretty naive/blindly loyal to believe there is no connection to the PM!

    From where I sit I believe heads should roll and I don’t really care from which side…it is a win, win situation for me, lol!

  10. “After all, his mob still need to be brought to book for that little lot.”

    Really Jane?? Other than phone card do you have any evidence for wrongdoing in your other points?? Or are they just wishfull allegations.??

    On another point, can anyone tell me me if posts to blogs are recorded?? For example, if i send a post from my work computer is there any evidence that I have sent a post??? Can my employer find out???

  11. Jane..on the Friday thread. Reported by Sky this morning, that although news.com stated ‘a copy’, this has been corrected by the Herald Sun as having been read to them..

    From: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25663515-5005961,00.html

    “I don’t have a copy of the email,” Mr Turnbull told reporters in Sydney on Saturday.

    “The email was not provided to (the media) by anyone in the opposition.”

    Therefore, Turnbull has gone not only to parliament but to the media with something that he has never seen and doesn’t have a copy of…..

  12. Neil – yep – of course they can. The IP address is embedded everywhere. And do not forget, there are a lot of autobots that run around the internet backing up pages, such as http://www.archive.org

  13. Keep an eye on ‘Steve Lewis’ (I have been for months – it’s very easy to forget how news stories start and which direction of impetus is lent to them when they are started without paying attention) is all I’m going to say.

  14. direction of impetus frame

  15. Grech can only recall an email from 4 months ago – no hard copy evidence. How many daily emails and other correspondence would this man receive and he can remember the precise content of one in particular?

    Scaper, I’m not sure I understand the situation correctly, but emails and faxes sent by Grech to the treasurer means exactly that. Anyone can send emails and faxes with whatever content they choose. Since their is no evidence of the original email, perhaps some mischievous entity is involved? On the other hand, emails and faxes supporting Turnball’s claims sent from the treasurer’s office would most certainly constitute evidence that Wayne Swann lied to parliament. That Swann received emails and faxes proves not a thing.

    From what I understand, Grant received extra no benefit anyway – from that which occurred 4 months ago. I would have thought that if the PM and/or treasurer did indeed give the alleged directive and from the content of the alleged communications reflecting those directives to help “a mate”, the proof would be in the pudding. Grant has received no extra benefit – why not?

  16. RN,

    From what I can gather, Ford Credit was told it would be wise to offer financing arrangements to Mr Grant’s Kia dealership (which it subsequently did, even though Ford Credit does not normally finance Kia franchises) since they, Ford Credit, were trying to arrange a $550 million facility from the $2 billion OzCar fund. This has all the hallmarks of a “you help our mate, and we’ll help you” kind of deal.

  17. Jane, the AWB thing has already had a Royal Commission, are you suggesting that this be superseded by a Right Royal Commission?

    It was an Inquiry, it did not have the powers of a Royal Commission. Howard limited the scope of that Inquiry through such tight terms of reference that Cole could only investigate AWB and its officers. Cole could not make findings against the government or any government officials, which is why Downer, Howard and Vaile happily appeared before it to say “I know nuffink, I read nuffink and nobody tells me nuffink’.

    There were calls for the terms of reference to be expanded to include the government, but Commissioner Cole refused to ask Howard for this to be done.

  18. Tony, on June 20th, 2009 at 12:40 pm

    But is your gathering correct, Tony?

  19. Legion,

    It’s what I’ve gleaned from various media reports of yesterday’s senate enquiry, so possibly not.

  20. Abbot’s effort on Lateline against Tanner was utterly woeful. It really is worth having a look at the ABC site to see the footage.

    Without a single piece of evidence, even though he was asked to produce it several times, he accused Rudd, Swan and the whole Labor party of just about every sackable offence committed. No ifs, buts or maybes but absolute assertions of malfeasance of the highest order with not one small piece of corroboration or substantiation.

    The bit to watch for is where he keeps accusing Tanner of things he is doing. Abbott would throw out a blatant nonsensical innuendo then accuse Tanner of innuendo. Abbott would accuse Tanner of butting in whilst continuously butting in on Tanner. Abbott would become shrill and hysterical and then accuse a very calm and collected Tanner of being hysterical, and so it went on.

    It only needed Costello to complete Abbott’s comedy routine.

  21. (It’s why I say to keep an eye on Steve Lewis and his loose use of ‘facts’ and ‘serious questions’ and convenient omission of serious questions about those facts as he continues his gonzo journalism, metaphors of violence, outright hyperbole unsupported by fact upon deconstruction outside the given frame, and general $hit-stirring…all the -gates over the last few months have been his…vegetarian dinner-gate, madame liu-gate, hairdryer-gate, zombie stimulus-gate, etc.)

  22. Adrian……..SPLAT!

  23. And another thing, notice Grech’s inability to raise his head and look anyone in the eye – I do not trust those who avoid eye contact.

    Until hard evidence is produced, it appears that the opposition have resorted to their well documented history of character assassination, their only option given the strength of the polls. If traction cannot be gained over the opponents, smear their characters in the hope that something will stick. Its been their preferred strategy since the election.

  24. Tony, on June 20th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    I’ll go dig, Tony, but AIRC from the snippets I read, the car dealer received his financing from his original finance source, which had been drying up, which leaves the thing at ‘representations’ and ‘discussions’ at best…and emails…about representations and discussions.

  25. RN, that’s pretty rich coming from someone who just smeared Grech because he didn’t give eye contact!

  26. I know that they can be manipulated quite easily, but the online poll in The Australian seems to be running against Rudd.

    Do you think Rudd misled parliament? Yes 72%

  27. OK Legion, Perhaps Hansard for yesterday’s senate would be a good place to start.

  28. Scaper, just my opinion. I stand by it. From my experience in human interaction, there is something very wrong with avoidance of eye contact – the hard evidence usually follows.

  29. Seems like a storm in a teacup compared to AWB, Children Overboard (where Howard did mislead the public), Manildra (howard misled the parliament about a meeting with Dick Honan), Iraq obtaining uranium from Africa, children locked up behind razor wire in the desert, Haneef, Hicks and Habib, John Howard’s signed faxes connecting him to a potentially illegal scheme to sack the workers in the waterfront dispute.

  30. RN, my experience and study of body language indicates Grech was under pressure from his senior and did not want to be put in a position to destroy his career!

    What was your take on Martine?

  31. It’s thin, but it’s there

    It is understood Ford made contact with Mr Grant and were supplied with information from the dealer’s accountant.

    But Mr Grant’s financier – GE – eventually came to the party and continued to provide finance for his Queensland business. Mr Grant refused to respond to phone calls.

    And it’s probable, to my mind at least, that an inquiry (or something at least to put some meat on the bones being tossed around) is needed to ask those serious questions about the rest of those facts – which aren’t really facts as I understand them, but appear to be ‘understandings’, whispered ‘learnings of’, and a hodge-podge of framings to craft a suitably sensational news narrative without many solid and fleshed-out facts at present.

  32. kittylitter, on June 20th, 2009 at 1:15 pm Said:

    YAWN!!!!!

  33. Fair enough, Legion, and that’s the trouble with (and half the fun of) speculating about these things based on news reports. It will be in next week’s parliament that the proper questions will be asked, and relevant answers given (provided Mr Rudd and Mr Swan can’t and don’t defer answering on the basis that an enquiry has been called).

  34. Gee, if you are going to bring up the past government’s actions to try to minimise the alleged misleading of Parliament by the Treasurer and PM, you got to include the last PM’s special treatment of his brother!

  35. BTW, I haven’t been able to locate any Hansard or similar record for yesterday’s enquiry.

  36. Tony, it should be published by Tuesday at the latest.

  37. I’m still not sure about the whole thing Grech (transcript of Senate questioning) has a recollection about an email and Turnbull says that he doesn’t have a copy.

  38. And don’t forget that Grech says at the end of his testimony, that he may be mistaken in all of his recollection.

  39. Agreed, KittyL..it’s just so minor compared with going behind the back of the UN to support Saddam Hussein..but a fib is nonetheless a fib. That is if it’s not just another comcar affair.

    If Turnbull has been misled in this matter..
    and he states that he doesn’t have a copy of the email..then he is not up to the job.

    Surely, before a rant and rave to parliament then he should have managed to get himself a copy of the email. Sounds as if Turnbull was a bit desperate to establish his credentials.

  40. Also, if Turnbull falls on his sword over this, will Costello reconsider?

  41. Agreed, KittyL..it’s just so minor compared with going behind the back of the UN to support Saddam Hussein’

    Any evidence for this Min???

  42. And you have it Legion..this is what Turnbull was originally running with. From your link:

    I mean people can legitimately ask the question why would a guy who’s got so many free cars from the Government anyway be accepting a free car from somebody else and yet another free car.

    Turnbull’s argument was how did the value of this ‘grant’ influence Kevin Rudd.

    Most would say not much. A ute to the value of $5,000 which Rudd has had use of for paddock bashing for about 6 years (from memory) which was declared in pecuniary interests.

  43. Whoops, mucked it up. The 2nd paragraph was the quote from Turnbull and following is from me.

  44. Tony, on June 20th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    …and that goes just as much to Turnbull and the opposition who have been making some pretty harsh allegations on what they initially stated was hard evidence and now appears to be all based on innuendo.

    This has been my point all along on the conservatives (including media) attacks on Rudd from the get go. It has been a constant barrage of triviality, banality, half truths, mud slinging, exaggeration and innuendo which has not gelled with the public, the opposite could be said.

    Trouble with this constant form of dirt digging and spray gun barrages of innuendo is that when the real thing does come along unless you really have some hard irrefutable evidence then you are only crying wolf. Also it means the opposition themselves must be squeaky clean at all times for the slightest slip up on their side and it will come back ten fold. Remember Turnbull still has some shaky stuff from his past hanging over him that probably won’t pass close scrutiny, like giving millions to a mate to make water from a cloudless sky when he was in government, let alone a shonky investment scheme when he was a merchant banker.

    Never a truer saying in these circumstance, tread softly but carry a big stick.

  45. I just watched the Treasurer on SKY and he puts across a pretty good explanation to the events.

    Now the ball is in Turnbull’s court…I’m enjoying this, just like watching two bullys fighting in the schoolyard!

  46. In the end it doesn’t matter if Rudd is innocent. I guess there always comes a time when you can pinpoint the beginning of the end for a pollie, or a government, no matter if it takes years for it to come. That time is when you or the electorate begin to feel that perhaps they are not as trustworthy as you thought and don’t quite believe everything from then onwards.

    Perhaps this is Rudd’s turning point. Was Siev-X Howard’s? I don’t remember.

  47. Does Turnbull still have to face a court or investigation into HIH?

  48. Missed it scaps..if you have time, can you provide a summary.

    Daphon..to me, there has been no honeymoon for Rudd because they’ve been down on him like a ton of bricks since the day that he walked into Parliament house…but most of it as per Mobius just trivia while letting the big fish get away.

    And as per Mobius if/when there is something serious it is likely to be overlooked due to above.

  49. Yes, Min, both you and Mobius are right: Rudd has been the target of an ongoing attack campaign from the beginning.

    The bias of the Murdoch media is so thick you wouldn’t need to be a messiah to walk on it.

  50. Daphon..to me, Howard’s turning point was non-core promises. Then of course locking women and children into desert concentration camps for years while pretending to be ‘a family man’.

  51. RN, my experience and study of body language indicates Grech was under pressure from his senior and did not want to be put in a position to destroy his career!

    Well if he didn’t want to destroy his career, what’s he doing leaking to Steve Lewis? Howard would have had him in court facing jail time in a flash!

    Where and for how long have you formally studied body language scaper?

    Gee, if you are going to bring up the past government’s actions to try to minimise the alleged misleading of Parliament by the Treasurer and PM, you got to include the last PM’s special treatment of his brother!

    Yeah thanks scaper, I had almost forgotten that National Textiles was hugely advantaged by having Stan Howard on the board when it went bust as Howard got the company a special one-off payment to bail them out.

    I’m not minimising it at all, I just think it’s a big fuss about nothing, especially as Howard misled parliament a number of times and there was nowhere near the heat applied to him that Rudd gets for this trivial stuff. Both sides give special consideration to favoured constituents or business.

    This is all so typical of the Opposition, they are supposed to be an alternative government and we never get alternative solutions for managing the country, just endless sniping and character assassinations – no wonder the public turns off.

  52. Kitty..I don’t pretend to have expertise in this field, but as a psychologist, field is educational psychology..so as I said, no way close to expertise. However, the usual interpretation of uneasiness is a suggestion of lying. The usual reaction of a person under pressure would be straight limbs, a direct gaze and a look of determination.

    However, and a very big however is that there are differences in the way that people react.

  53. kittylitter, on June 20th, 2009 at 2:40 pm Said:

    Well if he didn’t want to destroy his career, what’s he doing leaking to Steve Lewis?

    Indeed! Seems to me he was trying to make a big fellow of himself and got caught holding the baby. You have to watch journalists who will go to any lengths to ‘get’ or ‘construct’ a story. Imagine any public servant, no matter how senior or junior, who supposedly had the ‘money quote’ – THE email – and didn’t make several copies. How careless and how dumb.

    If Grech has a ‘senior role in Treasury’ I’d be amazed. Given his performance in Estimates, Godwin can’t stand the heat. And what’s this?

    An extensive records search has failed to produce any trace of a communication between Rudd and Treasury on Grant. And Grech, in an email to Swan’s chief of staff yesterday, said he had denied the existence of any correspondence between Rudd’s office and Treasury concerning Grant.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25662254-5013871,00.html

    It would appear that Mr Godwin Grech has a big future counting paper clips from somewhere west of Alice Springs.

  54. Also – it was Turnbull that said to Charlton that he should not lie to cover up for his boss, and the implication was that the lie was about the existence of the email. Now that the providence of the email is being called into question, and now that Turnbull admits that he has not seen he email, does not that made Turnbull’s accusations against Charlton a bit shallow.

    This really could turn out very badly for Turnbull.

    Come back Peter, all is forgiven. Maybe Costello did know about all of this, and that it might backfire on Turnbull. Stranger things have happened.

  55. A comment on LP has reminded me that the story about the email came from the Telegraph – and remember how confident they were about the Hanson photos? Just sayin’.

  56. This is what Charlton alleges that Turnbull said to him:

    You and I know there is documenary evidence that you have lied.

  57. Legion’s point, too, Joni; more specifically Steve Lewis at The Telegraph.

  58. As of yet, Rudd hasn’t felt the need to resort to the Howard defence which provved so successful over so many years by so many Howard Ministers, following the lead of Howard humself. It takes several forms

    I wasn’t told. Nobody told me. The phone line was bad. etc

  59. Tony – are your instincts beginning to change now?

  60. Nature..let me get this right. There is supposed to be an email to Grech but now as of yesterday Grech denies that there was any correspondence between Rudd’s office and Treasury.

    Soo…what’s is all about? An email that Grech doesn’t have a copy of and can’t much recall the details of but it’s got something to do with a mate of Rudd’s and a ’96 ute???

    From news.com..Grech, too, said he didn’t have any email.

    But from The Australian: “The public servant in question (Godwin Grech) said this afternoon that he believed he had had email communication from Dr Andrew Charlton of my office making representations on behalf of Mr Grant.

  61. Not really Joni – and I might be right off track – but I will be extremely interested to watch this unfold next wek. After all, this is the sort of intrigue we politix tragics love, isn’t it?

  62. LOL Tony – we really are poli-tragics…. hehe

  63. Mentioned in another thread (Friday Frolykz), but being on topic – I’ll move the answers here. Given that my self-deprecating title of “computer nerd” has stuck, I shall try to keep to the technicalities only…

    I’ve seen discussions in the last 24 hours where’s it suggested that it’s almost impossible to completely remove all traces of an email because of the number of servers they pass through, regular backups, etc.

    A couple of things to address here, where there is some truth and some misinformation. I’ll try to clear it up because I believe that the end of this scenario relies on whether or not Turnbull can uncover the email.

    Firstly, it doesn’t really matter how many servers the email “passes” through, only how many it is stored on. The issue doesn’t hinge on whether any email was sent between the two offices, only if the one supposedly read out to the media was. I’d be very surprised if any of the servers & routers for the email would actually keep a copy (as that would raise some nasty security issues).

    As such, there are two mail servers, two desktop clients, and any backups in which the email is likely stored. The desktop machine in which the email was supposedly received can be ruled out as that would have been uncovered in Senate yesterday. We can safely assume that, if the email existed, it has been deleted. I think we can also safely assume that, if the email existed, it’s been removed from the sender’s desktop machine too.

    This leaves the two servers and their backups. Removing email from the server of the sender is trivial and it is probably safe to assume that deleting the email from the client would remove it from the mail server of the recipient. Leaving any backups of these servers as the only real way to check whether the email was sent…

    I believe telecom companys can retrieve SMS messages for up to three months.

    Yes, because they keep a backup of them on their servers. I actually believe there is a law about that, but my telco experience was limited to applications running over their network, not the telco systems themselves. This raises the backup issue again…

    Also mentioned somewhere that there is a legal requirement for all correspondence in and out of the PM’s department to be backed up/filed/archived.

    This is the bit that intrigues me because, if true, either Rudd or Malcolm are going to be toast based on the truth and not a cover up. As I understand the situation, the Auditor General has been tasked to look into this and the first thing any competent technical guy will tell him will be to look into the backups.

    If the email was sent and not removed from both mail servers before a backup was done (usually overnight) and there is a legal requirement that all correspondence be kept – there exists a backup tape in an itemised vault with Rudd’s demise on it.

  64. And on the subject of email’s, joni – did you get mine?

    joni: did it go to my work address?

  65. Sky News is now saying that the PM has asked the AFP to investigate.

    Turnbull better be sure of his position.

  66. Min, this is a beat-up of gigantic proportions. Grant got nothing and if he had both Rudd and Swan pushing his case he would be entitled to feel as though he was duded.

    BTW, having politicians make representations on one’s behalf is perfectly normal. They spend much more time involved in that task then they do studying legislation. In this instance it was Bernie Ripoli (where the business is located) who made the contact rather than the local member who was Rudd.

    What is the issue again?

  67. joni: Probably, I only have the one.

    On the subject of the AFP – I would think Rudd is pretty damn confident of his position given he is not delaying any investigatoins. This, more than anything else, has got to be rattling Turnbull.

    And on Costello… A much hoped for return would not have the desired effect. He has already stated that he is no longer interested in representing Higgins. A sudden change of heart around this issue might work for the rusted on Liberals, but the general public will see it for the opportunism it is. Given how close to the next election it is – it would be hard for them to remove it from the public mind before the inevitable “image engineering” PR work that would need to occur before the election ads hit the airwaves.

  68. Just watching Rudd – he seems bloody sure of the position that there is no email.

    “Our only conclusion is that the email is fake.”

    And he goes on to make say that the AFP investigation will look into the Liberal parties involvement in the email.

    Was his chat with Dr Charlton a case of premature accusation on the part of Turnbull? Will Turnbull last out the weekend?

  69. Boy this is exciting to watch. Both sides have really put it on the line here. I reckon it’s probably true given the subsequent correspondence and Grech’s evidence, but Turnbull better be able to substantiate or he’s a goner.

    Swan has as far as I can tell, misled Parliament so regardless he would have to go. Then it’s Rudd or Turnbull. Is this a good time to raise the issue of “Shreddergate”?

  70. James

    I agree on Swan – he still has a problem.

    And it really is like the final hand in a game of poker, both have gone all in, and only one is going to walk away the victor.

    And I am sure that Piers will raise the issue again (especially if he is on Insiders tomorrow morning).

  71. Joni, that’s the thing, Turnbull is equally certain of his position, and was when he advised Charlton to come clean the other night. There is nothing that Turnbull did wrong in that beyond bring it up at a social function which I think is pretty bad form. But it’s not harrassment or bullying to advise someone to tell the truth, and that’s all that has been alleged.

  72. Ah well, I don’t much like either of them, so it’s win win for me:)

  73. I agree – I don’t think it was bullying by Turnbull, but it does seem odd that Turnbull is now backing away from the comment to Charlton that “You and I know there is documenary evidence that you have lied”.

    And so – I am not so sure of Turnbull being confident – when he was asked about the providence of the email, Turnbull looked a bit taken back – just for a brief second.

    Oh dear – Rudd just used the “Let’s wait for the police investigation to finish” line – makes me wonder what he is hiding…..

  74. James of North Melbourne, on June 20th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    Nothing wrong with it, James; but it does give some indication of just how Machiavellian Turnbull is, especially when combined with his repeated underminings of his own kind before ascending to the Liberal throne. Mr Turnbull has to remember that there is still a game outside the game he thinks he’s playing.

  75. I think Swan should go, but that might be why Rudd is pushing this as hard as he can. If he is confident that the email is fake (or beyond discovery) and he hammers this hard enough – it’s possible Swan will escape through dint there is a bigger story in Malcolm’s fall.

    An amusing aside: it is almost mindless to detect a person’s right/left leanings based on whether they think Rudd lied or not so far. On the whole, I think the weight of opinion is against Rudd though (middle-grounders seem to be siding with the right-wingers in this). Perhaps that is another reason for Rudd to push as hard as he can… to restore people’s “high opinion” of him.

  76. Oh dear – Rudd just used the “Let’s wait for the police investigation to finish” line – makes me wonder what he is hiding…..

    I hope that doesn’t excuse him from answering questions in parliament next week; otherwise, I might find myself suspecting a strategic, time-buying investigation.

  77. (1st par above: quote from Joni)

  78. We should run a book on this.

    At the moment I’d give the odds of 5/4 for the PM being a very naughty boy and 2/1 on Turnbull being a first class mug.

  79. A strategic, time-buying investigation would only prolong the inevitable. There are other ways to delay the answering of questions (every politician that “answers” the media’s questions does it!!!).

    I think Rudd is confident of his position and is aiming to take down Malcolm (leaving the Liberal’s leader with a large “catch-up” to do before elections).

  80. Better still Scaper, take Shrewd Rythm and Kindrate for the Quinella in the last at Moonee Valley. 😉

  81. I hope that doesn’t excuse him from answering questions in parliament next week; otherwise, I might find myself suspecting a strategic, time-buying investigation.

    It’d be a good strategy if Rudd was being blind-sided with a fake email and a Liberal Party leader running around both relying on and repudiating reliance on an email of unknown provenance, though.

  82. Ah well, have to head to the farm to drench cattle. Will talk tomorrow night if fingers have defrosted by then:)

  83. B.Tolputt, on June 20th, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    Partly true Ben but this is government and an IT system that has had a very expensive (and very botched) overhaul.

    All official correspondence, whether spoken, written or electronic is recorded and kept as well as being backed up. Even if the email was deleted by the sender (and why would he do that when he’s not trying to cover up?) an archive version is kept. That goes for the receive end as well. And if the emails are deleted, the record of the email with the header information, subject and each relay point is kept, so from origin to destination can be traced if they know what to look for. Just how many emails would there be from Grech to the PM in four or five years? There might be thousands from Grech and tens of thousands to the PM handled by his staff, but there can’t be that many From: Goodwin.Grech@gov.org.au To: PM@gov.org.au CC: Treasury. Subject: Rusty Ute.

    If the email exists or existed then a trace of it can be found. But if the trouble had been taken to wipe out the entire trail of the email from the government records then that also will be immediately obvious and just as damning.

  84. Yell out when we get to the fun of forged email headers and spoofed ip addresses.

  85. We can only hope for such fun.

  86. I wonder if they have checked Charlton’s laptop and phone yet?

    My laptop has the same IP address as my PC.

  87. Tony, on June 20th, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    Probably a moot point if the email ‘doesn’t exist’ and also if it ‘does exist’ in any form other than the electronic somewhere with someone whispering sweet nothings deep throatings to Steve Lewis. I’m still not sure how Steve will handle being at the periphery centre of a police *gasp* investigation which now focuses on, among other things, him his source, presumably. 😉

  88. periphery centre

  89. joni, on June 20th, 2009 at 4:16 pm Said:

    “Oh dear – Rudd just used the “Let’s wait for the police investigation to finish” line – makes me wonder what he is hiding…..”

    Well, if he’s called a police investigation, he has to wait until it’s completed before saying anything. Just imagine the howls of outrage from the usual suspects if he started to pontificate on the likely outcome.

    For me, that’s an indication that he doesn’t have anything to hide-quite the contrary in fact and is very confident of the outcome. This being the case, it will be a very large club with which to beat Trunchbull and the Libtards into their political graves.

    Trunchbull should be very afraid and before he opens his gob any wider the following words should be whispered in his shell-like-Martin Hamilton-Smith.

  90. This will be very bad for the Liberals if the faked email is shown to have come from them. Especially given Turdball’s use of a faked document, his harassment of a witness, and his outright denial this morning that the Lieberals were in any way connected with the email. He’s blazed a trail for himself and them that he cannot backtrack along.

  91. Caney, first thing will be to establish if there was an email then to establish if it is fake.

    ‘Premature adjudication’ makes a mess!

  92. Government IT expert (misnomer) stated on Seven News that government emails cannot be erased without the very fact of the trail being wiped being flagged.

    Turnbull quickly turned on Swan when cornered by the press over the email not existing or being fake. He demanded Swan resign immediately and then closed the press conference in a huff.

    What a turn around, from thinking Rudd would set a precedence of being a PM forced to resign (and over a rusty ute whilst other PM’s in the past have done far far worse), to now Turnbull being on the ropes and maybe having to give up his leadership.

    This is the problem with always attacking on everything and the scatter gun. You do it so often and allow so may half truths and out right deceits go through to put down the character of your opponent, that when some half baked or falsified accusation is made you fire it out there instead of taking a second to check if the ammo is good or a dud.

    A legitimate email may still appear but it is looking less likely on each passing day. With Turnbull’s initial attacks on “solid evidence”, to “credible source” and finally move onto “hearsay”, along with his harassment (and yes it was harassment) in desperation, it is now Turnbull’s character in question. This is where the constant trivial attacking of someone over a protracted period can come back to bite big time. You better make sure that each and every attack has a basis in credibility, even perceived credibility, otherwise one stuff up undoes years of character assassination.

    Now think how much further along the opposition and the right wing media would have been if they had substantially attacked policy and government stuff ups from day one?

  93. scaper…, on June 20th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    Steve Lewis says there definitely is one and it’s standard practice for all good journalists who don’t want a tonne of proverbials to come down on their own heads that they don’t run with a Government-destroying story on the basis of conveniently unauthenticated hearsay like Malcolm might have done, assuming there’s been any fakery; in fact, in a high-stakes game that’s been playing out for months, one would expect a senior journalist of Steve Lewis’ integrity to make double sure of that which he was vouching for and writing about. 😉

  94. By the way on my last sentence, the opposition and media could learn a lesson from many of the conservative or unaligned in this blog, who have intelligently and logically questioned government policies from the start.

    Hope it continues for all governments no matter what flavour.

  95. I was interested to see that Andrew Charlton is working for Rudd. This is the economist that is mentioned by Labor party voters as reference for criticising the Howard govt economic policies. Charltons book was launched by Rudd and now he works for him. Charlton makes fun of Costello and calls him a kitchen economist. According to Charlton, Costello does not know anything, unlike himself who of course knows everything.

    It would not surprise me if it was Charltons idea for the cash splash rather than Treasury.

  96. Legion. The problem is Steve Lewis wouldn’t have IT expertise on hand that is able drill down to the headers and source data of an email to check its legitimacy. And I suggest it would have to be government IT to really know the truth or otherwise of it.

  97. Neil of Sydney, on June 20th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    Tell it to George, Neil; he’s much more sympathetic to peddlers of microwave pies as their gourmet contribution to economics.

  98. Mobius Ecko, on June 20th, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    You miss my point entirely, Adrian. At this point, Steve Lewis is the only person who has put their hand up for knowing anything about any email.

  99. Scaper, do you think Mr Rudd would be announcing investigations by the Auditor-General AND the Australian Federal Police if he thought their findings would incriminate him? You might not believe the guy, but he seems pretty confident about this to me, and is unequivocally calling the email a “fake”.

    So, let’s for the sake of argument, assume for the moment that the email is fake. Who or what is most likely to be responsible? Surely not a Liberal/s, ya think?.

    Now, if it comes from the Liberals, they, and Turdball are in deep trouble:

    1) This morning he rushed out to say that in now way did it come from anyone in the Opposition. (Why rush out to say this? How could he have known what he said is accurate??)

    2) His and the Liberals’ use of faked material to attack the government

    3) His harassment of a witness, saying he had concrete evidence

    4) With the Liberals’ established record of dodgy documents dealings (Lindsay leaflets / Martin Hamilton-Smith in South Australia), this would firmly lock in the impression of an untrustworthy, unscrupulous, unsavoury organisation.

  100. Mobius Ecko, on June 20th, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    Or to make myself plainer, you’re really trying to tell me that senior political journos don’t know how to, and are under no obligation to, authenticate their sources, including digital documents, in this day and age? ROFL. And even if you’re correct in your assumptions, and I’d suggest that you are mistaken in those, IF the email is a fake and Steve got gulled, that’s still a hot potato in his lap as a credible political commentator.

  101. Where is you evidence Neil? You keep demanding it of others but have no hesitation in conducting innuendo and smear when it concerns the government.

    It would really surprise me if you were strait down the line for once.

  102. True Legion but think of this from a journo’s perspective. They see an email, either a print out of one (which would be more remiss if they didn’t check) or a copy as an attachment on a computer. All the headers and gov.au addresses match government emails you have seen many times before and mail server references look as though they are government based.

    I suggest as bad as it is there are very few journalists who would take the time, expense and make the effort to have credible IT people check the guts of the email for legitimacy. This goes double for many of the ideologically driven opinion writers and journos that have come to the fore since the advent of this government, without even reference to a whole very powerful media organisation hell bent on destroying our PM.

  103. Where is you evidence Neil?”

    Evidence of what??? I just said that Charlton ( the person who sent the e-mail) mocked the economic policies of Howard/Costello. I actually read his book, Oznomics.

    I also made the suggestion that Charlton could be the one behind the cash splash. Is this a smear is it???

  104. Neil of Sydney, on June 20th, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    Did you like George’s piece, Neil, just out of interest?

  105. Did you like George’s piece, Neil, just out of interest?”

    Don’t know. Am I supposed to??? I read his article and he sounds like a Labor party voter who has realised he made a mistake with his vote at the last election

  106. Whilst being a leftie and a person who despises the current opposition, the previous government, and RWDBs in general, I have tried to consider this issue with complete neutrality.

    My conclusion?

    It’s about as important as deciding whether to have salad or vegies with tonight’s steak.

  107. Neil of Sydney, on June 20th, 2009 at 6:32 pm Said:

    “I was interested to see that Andrew Charlton is working for Rudd. This is the economist that is mentioned by Labor party voters as reference for criticising the Howard govt economic policies. Charltons book was launched by Rudd and now he works for him. Charlton makes fun of Costello and calls him a kitchen economist. According to Charlton, Costello does not know anything, unlike himself who of course knows everything.

    It would not surprise me if it was Charltons idea for the cash splash rather than Treasury.”

    Why just single out Charlton? He’s probably well back in the queue when it comes to criticism of Costello.

    Spitting bile and using smear tactics won’t convince anyone that you have a valid argument. Try assembling some facts that you can back up from a credible source and people might listen instead of dismissing you out of hand.

  108. Neil of Sydney,
    Is that the first GM article you have read? ‘Cause your comment suggests that.
    And do you KNOW that Charlton SENT the email? Please share.

  109. Why just single out Charlton?”

    Because he is in the centre of this e-mail thing. It is alleged that he was the one who sent the e-mail.

    I was just making a coment of his past history. He has always been critical of Costello saying he didn’t do much.

    Bile and smear tactics??? What smear tatics???

    PS Miglo I tend to agree with you. However the issue is did they lie to parliament.

    PS handyrab. No I have no evidence that he sent the e-mail. It is an allegation in the newspapers

  110. But Neil, you said HE sent the email. Do you know HE did or is it just alleged that HE did. And do you have information (outside of the press) that the email exists and that in fact HE did send it?

    And the issue is not whether they have lied to the house but rather they have misled it. A subtle difference. Work that one out!

  111. handyrab, on June 20th, 2009 at 7:36 pm Said:”

    You must have trouble with English I said this “No I have no evidence that he sent the e-mail. It is an allegation in the newspapers”

    I was just commenting on the newspaper allegations. Am I not allowed to do this???

  112. I just checked out some email I’ve received over time and I could alter one to look exactly like the alleged correspondence.

    On comparison it looks like all email from the PM’s office goes through one gate…interesting.

  113. Neil, You’re allowed to say anything you like,but your comment said ‘Charlton (the person who sent the email)’.
    In other words you seem to have come to the conclusion that he did. And was only prepare to retract it when its veracity was questioned.
    Mate, I read the papers and I fully accept that you take any political allegation with a grain of salt. If it is shown that Rudd/ Swan misled the house they should go. Simple as that.
    But, Neil, what happens if Turnbull is incorrect in his allegations? That he has misled the house and the public, should he too go?

  114. joni, James, Ben, why do you think Mr Swan is gone? As far as I can tell, his only “crime” is receiving faxed copies of emails concerning this matter.

    How may emails do you receive unsolicited each day at work – I reckon I’d see at least 30 a day where I look at the sender & delete, look at the subject and delete, or read a line or two and delete – sent to distribution lists or by someone who thinks I might need to know the info they’re disseminating.

    A treasurer would receive REAMS of information daily that some public servant thinks he may need to know – where’s the crime in receiving unsolicited email?

    IF he has asked to be kept abreast of this particular matter, that’s an entirely different story, but from what has been reported, I very much doubt that is the case…

  115. Sorry scaper, as Neil pointed out ‘I must have trouble with English’ , I would appreciate if you could explain further your comment at 7.44pm. Please.

  116. O.K. I should have said that it is alleged that Charlton sent the e-mail. How the hell would I know if he sent the e-mail. I am not a fly on the wall in Rudds office. I was just commenting on the media reports for e.g.

    “The public servant in question (Godwin Grech) said this afternoon that he believed he had had email communication from Dr Andrew Charlton of my office making representations on behalf of Mr Grant. I also note that the public servant said: ‘My recollection might be totally false. That is a big qualification’.””

    from this link http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25662848-5013871,00.html

    As for Turnbull he could be in trouble. Did he say these things in parliment and mislead parliament???

  117. Let me explore another dimension of this development. In particular the injustice meted out to Grech.

    A Hypothetical: Grech until recent times was in the ‘backroom’ doing all the adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, modelling and the like which he was good at, presumably. Then a few months ago his name appeared at the bottom of an official document as a contact (an administrative type officer) if one wanted to explore the possibilities of an alternative source of finance for those who provided credit to car dealers and the like.

    Grech became the ‘man in the know’ as far as journalists were concerned. It seems he was wooed by one journalist in particular and he provided some ‘information’ that presumably ‘excited’ the journalist as to the possibilities. So much so he made contact with Grech on at least four occasions. (If at first you don’t succeed – to get the line you want – , then try, try again?)

    Some questions arise. Did Grech inform his immediate superior of that initial contact? Yes? No? If yes, then did he also provide notes as to what he said? If ‘no’ then did he make a diary note? If not? Then why not?

    Put simply, did Grech leave a ‘paper trail’? Probably not, at least at the early stages. But now Grech is in it up to his eyeballs and his prospects seem decidedly grim.

    But to the point of this post – the treatment of Grech, which I think was a denial of natural justice. Make no mistake, Grech and his future was on trial there and he has been sliced, diced and indeed convicted in what I’ll call a Kangaroo Court. It seems to me, that under normal circumstances, someone as junior as Grech only got a guernsey because firstly, he had talked (boasted) and secondly because he was an easy mark.

    In his ‘trial’, Grech had no legal strategy because he had no legal, specialist advice. In a Court of Law, with his future on the line, a Barrister surely would have objected to all the ‘leading questions’ and cautioned Grech against answering. No such luck. All he had was his administrative superior who didn’t have the authority to prevent a complete miscarrige of injustice.

    Grech was clearly out of his depth. There has to be a better way.

  118. @Adrian/Mobius:
    I would not be surprised that there is some additional logging/auditing software in use. That said, it is not standard for email systems and most likely was implemented for the explicit purpose of keeping that law people are talking about in regards to Prime Ministerial correspondence.

    I’d be interested in knowing some more about the system if you’ve got details. I’d also be interested if anyone knows more about the legislation requiring preservation / auditing of the PM’s correspondence – I admit it’s a hole in my knowledge on the situation and would like to read up some more on it.

    @bacchus:
    I personally think Swan has misled parliament because he is receiving correspondence on the situation on his home fax. If he maintains there was no direct involvement in the deal (which seems pretty minimal at best) – why would the guy be getting the correspondence sent to his home fax?

    One should note (if we can find out) exactly what the AFP & Auditor-General are looking into exactly. I’m betting it will be focusing on this “fake email” and have nothing to do with correspondence from Swan’s office. If this is the case, and I suspect it is, it is a subtle but important misdirection that’ll let Swan off the hook (as Malcolm will be a bigger fish for the media to fry).

  119. Thanks Neil.
    Rather pedantic of me, wasn’t it? But I will not make a comment on this or any other blog that is based on heresay, including any well respected journalists allegations.
    There’s one thing we agree on is Miglo’s comment. This whole affair will demolished or damage someone’s career/credibility. And some of them may have had something to offer down the track.
    Good night

  120. PS Miglo I tend to agree with you. However the issue is did they lie to parliament.

    So that’s the issue. Did they, or did they not, lie to a pack of proven liars?

  121. Sorry Ben I have been out of the system for a long time and the last reserve time I did was before the total botch up the previous government implemented, and eventually fixed at massive cost. I know that official email trails are kept and can be traced. If it’s the same as documentation then it can be held for up to 30 years depending on what it is.

    I only know that in Defence and government departments I’ve had dealings with as part of Defence keep all records, written and electronic. As much as possible for all official meetings the conversations are also recorded, usually in the way of a written report. Go visit someone or a business in an official capacity and a visit report ensues.

    In business, when dealing with Defence/Government, we keep all emails to and from them and archive everything without deleting. This has saved our bacon on a couple of occasions when they have referenced emails years old.

  122. Until recently, I’ve always been working for subcontracted companies working for a company contracted by the government (i.e. two levels removed). So I’ve never had to deal with such archiving.

    Thanks for the info anyway – light as it is 🙂

  123. Well said N5. One thing that has me upset with the government and shows that when it really gets down to it they are not that much different to the previous reprobates. They have started character assassinating Grech.

    It would have been much better if they had stood up for him and acknowledged he was a person out of his debt being asked to recall something he probably took scant notice on any given day, that is if it existed at all.

    They should be giving him their full support, not crucifying him.

  124. Mobius Ecko, on June 20th, 2009 at 8:37 pm Said:

    It would have been much better if they had stood up for him

    Maybe? But the point of my post was the complete ‘unfairness’ of the process, regardless of which party is in power.

    While Estimates is ‘democracy in action’ it is also ‘injustice in action’ at least at the individual level.

  125. why would the guy be getting the correspondence sent to his home fax?

    This is the point I believe you’re missing Ben – Did he in any way initiate the receiving of this correspondence, or is it, as I suspect, a case of enthusiastic public servants sending such correspondence believing the treasurer would want to know?

    Don’t you receive unwanted emails from colleagues telling everyone what a wonderful job they’ve done on something you have absolutely no interest in, or breathlessly announcing some new discovery? I know I do – the curse of email!

    On the email technical side, a friend did some contract IT email investigative work for Telstra a couple of years ago, and apparently that organisation keeps every email sent and received by all staff, CEO included – she tells me it’s impossible for non-IT staff to permanently delete any email from their systems, which are backed up constantly (not sure how that works, mirroring, snapshots, database replication etc.) The records are kept for 7 years I think she said – surely the government systems would be better than that?

  126. Further, if Rudd or Swan wanted to help the ‘mate’ in a direct sense, then it would have been a ‘ verbal’ request to the highest possible authority. FGS, when it comes to the CEO of one’s Department, one never puts (dodgy) requests into writing.

    Tis only the ‘proper’ requests to lower order officials or requests by lower order staffers that are ever put into writing.

    That’s not to say that ‘mistakes’ don’t happen because they do.

  127. It appears Grech never received the email in question.

    http://twitpic.com/7sfyu

    “As discussed, we have asked IT to check the log for incoming external emails ro Mr Grech’s inbox on 19 February 2009. I can confirm that no emails were received by Mr Grech on that day from either Andrew Charlton or anyone else from the Prime Minister’s Office. IT has confirmed that even if an email was subsequently deleted, it would appear in the log.”

  128. bacchus, on June 20th, 2009 at 8:50 pm Said:

    a case of enthusiastic public servants sending such correspondence believing the treasurer would want to know

    Indeed! It’s called ‘covering your arse’. Anyone ever watched Yes Minister re overloading the level of correspondence?

  129. Mobius Ecko, on June 20th, 2009 at 6:50 pm Said:
    Where is you evidence Neil

    Evidence of what Adrian???

    Also why are they only checking the inbox on 19 Feb 2009. Why this day only???

  130. Nature 5, on June 20th, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Bingo. Now run that thought for Lewis and a ‘heard’ email. Covering runs in more than one direction. 😉

  131. It’s the day it was alleged the email was sent from the PM’s office to Grech.

  132. Legion, on June 20th, 2009 at 9:11 pm

    Yes! Grech and other relatively junior public servants who aspire to ‘greatness’ try to read the political winds. Sometimes they get it right while at other times they stuff it up. Often their imagination and ‘willingness to please’ clouds their imagination, judgement and memory.

    While I have great sympathy for Grech, he is clearly a victim.

    As an aside can I suggest that joni and reb create a ‘Kama Sutra’ award to be bestowed on the person who adopts the most {conflicting) positions on the one thread. As always, scaper is the clear winner.

    Just sayin .

  133. To add to that if anyone had seen the email or had it read out to them then the date would most likely be the first thing read or stated. Without the date the whole thing is fairly well meaningless.

  134. Adrian- if there was no e-mail how do people know it wasn’t sent on 19 Feb 2009

  135. My god Neil. There is an alleged email, Turnbull originally stated he knew for certain there was one. That alleged email was said to have been sent on that date. It turns out there was no email from the PM’s office to Grech sent on that date.

    Now that is not to say that there really is an email and those making the allegations got the date wrong, but that’s where we’re at.

  136. kittylitter, on June 20th, 2009 at 9:47 pm

    Looking bad for Turnbull. Watch him try to move it all onto Swan, as he already has at today’s press conference.

    Some here will do the same.

  137. links via possum re email check:

    http://twitpic.com/7sfyu

    http://twitpic.com/7sfxb

  138. Another aspect. In theory, at least, FOI requests are/were supposed to cover all emails, which would BTW add to the search bill. Not sure where that ‘problem’ is at the moment, but when I was last in the service a decade ago, emails had to be kept as a matter of policy.

    Miglo?

  139. Well there’s a turn up. I posted my email after kitty and N5 in response to kitty, yet it turned up before their emails.

  140. Damn, not email, got them on the brain now. I meant I posted after kitty and N5.

  141. Mobius Ecko, on June 20th, 2009 at 6:50 pm Said:
    Where is you evidence Neil?”

    One more time. Evidence of what?? Please tell me what you are talking about??

    You also said “You keep demanding it of others but have no hesitation in conducting innuendo and smear when it concerns the government.
    It would really surprise me if you were strait down the line for once.”

    What smear and innuendo are you talking about??? All i said was that Charlton is alleged to have sent the e-mail. Is this a smear??

    An apology would be nice if you cannot say what smearing i was alleged to be doing

  142. N5, I wouldn’t bother keeping an email on something that isn’t an issue.

  143. Also via commenter OzPol Tragic @ possum:

    BTW: The wording of the fake email (but not the fake email itself), contained in Steve Lewis’s email to Lachlan Harris is on

    http://twitpic.com/7sfux

  144. kittylitter, on June 20th, 2009 at 9:47 pm Said:

    re the email record, it opens with

    as discussed

    You mean there’s no official record re that discussion? Strange? LOL. Indeed it would be ‘strange’ if an ‘official’ ecord was ever made.

    Re your second link, notice Terry Moran is certainly part of the loop.

    T’will be interesting when all the details drop out.

  145. bacchus, on June 20th, 2009 at 8:50 pm Said:

    “Don’t you receive unwanted emails from colleagues telling everyone what a wonderful job they’ve done on something you have absolutely no interest in, or breathlessly announcing some new discovery? I know I do – the curse of email!”

    Exactly. And I wouldn’t mind betting that staffers bung every email, written request, phone message and lunch order onto Swan’s and other minister’s private fax machines. The paper would have to be replenished a million times to accommodate all the sh&t being sent.

    Because who would want to be the one who ignored what turned out to be the one thing on which the fate of the nation turned? Not me! Load the sucker up!

  146. I’m completely at a lost about what you are going on about Neil, really.

    Can you point out where I have conducted smear and innuendo in relation to this? The evidence so far is pointing to the fact there was no email between the PM’s office and Grech. Which either means Turnbull was lying or mislead. On being confronted with this fact this afternoon Turnbull turned on Swan.

    As I have stated many times Neil, and you are just as bad, from the moment Rudd came to prominence, even before he became PM, there has been a concerted effort to denigrate and smear him as an attempt at character assassination. Every minor gesture, misplaced word, his wife, his/her wealth and even their pet for stuff’s sake has been bought up as the end of this country as we know it. Whole mountain ranges out of tiny insignificant molehills. Abbott did it again last night on Lateline.

    This constant baseless haranguing and trivial nit picking can only work if those doing the attacking are squeaky clean themselves and they make absolutely sure that every single one of their allegations can’t be confirmed or appear to be based in fact or look credible.

    Trouble is this type of politicking is easily derailed, even by those who are being attacked, but it is so ingrained in conservative politics they continue to do it despite themselves, and they do so because they are aided and abetted by an incompetent media as a whole.

  147. Miglo, on June 20th, 2009 at 9:57 pm Said:

    N5, I wouldn’t bother keeping an email on something that isn’t an issue

    Of course. But my enquiry relates to the technical procedures which may or may not be in place that make your personal decisions somewhat irrelevant.

    Simply, when FOI requests are made these days, do they include an email search?

  148. Neil not the date mentioned:

    http://twitpic.com/7sfux

  149. Neil note the date mentioned:

    http://twitpic.com/7sfux

  150. Mobius Ecko, on June 20th, 2009 at 6:50 pm Said:

    Adrian go back and read your post at 6.50PM. You said this of ME

    “You keep demanding it of others but have no hesitation in conducting innuendo and smear when it concerns the government”

    You accused ME of conducting smear and innuendo. I just wanted to know what smearing and innuendoing i am supposed to have done.

  151. Strange things happening tonight. Must have accidently hit submit as I was correcting the not and then again after I corrected it.

  152. I found this interesting by Michelle Grattan

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/looking-for-truth-in-a-uteful-of-lies-20090619-cr9n.html

    “One would expect Labor senators to try to be obstructionist. But why would David Martine, the boss of Godwin Grech, the man making the allegation, try to hinder evidence being given? Grech was the only one who claimed to have seen the correspondence, but at every turn Martine tried to stop him casting further light on what he might know. Martine’s motives are obscure.”

    If a lefty reporter is puzzled at Labor party attempts and Senior members of the Treasury to stop Grech talking there must be something wrong

  153. This might interest you, Neil, given it’s from a ‘rightoid’ blog where its posters have a better memory than I. Although, it is somewhat news to me, having been witness to all the ‘bullying’ and ‘explosive temper’ and ‘he’s not that nice behind closed doors’ stories, that the PM’s natural state is to get angry then get ‘prissy’. It does make for an interesting thought, too, while there’s all the fun of speculating about who’s holding the hand-grenade email.

  154. And just for yucks, or a calculus for scoring respective plays as they unfold, for anyone vaguely interested: thirty-six stratagems.

  155. Thanks for the link Legion. I must admit i feel home when I am on a rightoid blog. It was nice to read the comments.

    Sinclair davidson said this “If the email does exist (i.e. is genuine) I suspect it would have been picked up off a communal printer in Treasury and then passed along.”

    Also Turnbull has said he does not have a copy of the e-mail.

  156. Neil – Turnbull said that there was “documentary evidence” – not “documentary allegations”… Turnbull should have been sure of his ground (that is, viewed the evidence) before making his allegations.

    This is the problem (as I see it) for Turnbull. No matter what the facts are, if the email’s providence or existence is not proven, then Turnbull will find it very hard to survive.

    BTW – I still think that we will still see a Swan dive.

  157. BTW – I still think that we will still see a Swan dive.

    Number 11 on the Chinese takeaway menu. I suspect that might be a popular dish, too.

  158. Hi Joni

    I am a little dense. Why is Turnbull find it hard to survive?? I can see that he would be in trouble. He has made an unsubstantiated allegation. But he has not misled parliament

  159. Number 11 with a Malcolm Tofubull* side.

    * Tofubull – not quite a main course, not quite a side, just a wannabe dish.

  160. Neil – he accused the PM of lying to parliament, he accused a person in the PMO of lying (see Charlton’s statement). He implied (and did not deny this until this morning) that he was either in possession or had seen the infamous email.

    If you want to sling mud, then you better be careful that none of it sticks to yourself.

    BTW – remember when Howard tried to catch Rudd with the Burke allegation, and it ended up with Ian Campbell leaving cabinet?

    (and I still say that Swan will have to resign)

  161. O.K. We will then have to wait and see. I think it is the job of oppositions to make allegations. Perhaps Turnbull should not have been so strong in his allegations. I guess he must have seen something.

    It could be true that he does not have a copy of the e-mail but it does not mean he has not seen it.

  162. Turnbull said (and I quote):

    The Prime Minister and the Treasurer abused their offices and taxpayers resources to seek advantage for one of their mates and then lied about it to the Parliament… A shocking abuse of power and a betrayal of public trust.

    If Turnbull cannot prove his statement (against the PM), then I think he cannot survive. And note the change in language from both Turnbull and News Ltd. It changed from the email being a fact, to the email being something that was “read out”. As you like to point out, facts are important.

  163. Turnbull now has a statement that says:

    Responding to Mr Rudd’s latest smear, I note that I have never claimed to be in possession of this email and, as it happens, even the Charlton file note (which is both inaccurate and incomplete) does not suggest I did.

  164. (and I still say that Swan will have to resign)

    on what basis joni?

  165. Joni I read you link to Turnbulls statement anf point 5 was

    “5. Mr Grech has said before the Senate Committee he recalls receiving a short email from the PMO about John Grant, but he was prevented from answering further questions on that matter by the intervention of Labor Senators and his senior officer.”

    Even Michelle Grattan commented about this. Why did the Treasury official stop Grech answering the question?? All we wanted was a yes or no from Grech and he was not allowed to answer. I thought this current govt was going to be more open.

    Apparently the question asked was this “Did you see any representations from the Prime Minister on behalf of a car dealer (in this case, Rudd’s mate John Grant) on Friday?”

    And he was not allowed to answer by the Treasury official

  166. IMHO – he did mislead parliament. Maybe not in fact (presentations on behalf of Grant) – but he was certainly aware of official involvement. The emails and faxes (IMHO) prove this.

  167. Yes Neil – and was that a politician or a public servant?

  168. And Grech also says in his testimony that he may be mistaken in his recollection.

  169. Not sure of your question but Turnbull said “he was prevented from answering further questions on that matter by the intervention of Labor Senators and his senior officer.”

    I guess the senior officer was a Public Servant. So the answer to your question was both (I think)

  170. Sorry Neil – you said:

    And he was not allowed to answer by the Treasury official.

    Maybe his boss was trying to stop him from airing something (the existence of the email) that could not be supported by the evidence?

  171. Well Joni see my post “Neil of Sydney, on June 20th, 2009 at 11:00 pm Said:”

    Michell Grattan even gave the guys name. The senior offical was David Martine

  172. And Turnbull is relying on this statement to the senate enquiry from Gretch:

    My recollection may be totally false, but my recollection – and that’s a big qualification – but my recollection is that there was a short email from the PMO [Prime Minister’s Office] to me which very simply alerted me to the case of John Grant, but I don’t have the email.

    Note the “my recollection may be totally false” part. Maybe that is why his boss did not want him to make a statement. Any why did the ALP senators want to stop him? um, they are politicians.

  173. joni, my recollection is that he acknowledged such “presentations on behalf of Grant” (by his department) and “official involvement” in parliament, thus not misleading anyone? The one “damning fact” seems to be the unsolicited faxing of emails to his home – very weak evidence IMO…

  174. Fail to plan, plan to fail!

  175. Neil – yes – we know the senior officials name – he was sitting beside Gretch. I have watched his statement.

  176. bacchus – true – I have been trying to look for the Hansard comment, but am being distracted by the Lions/Boks game.

  177. 3. The text of the alleged email was not supplied to Mr Lewis by anybody in the Opposition.

    4. The only people who can speak authoritatively about this email are Mr Grech and Mr Charlton.

    Huh? What email? The one Steve Lewis ‘was supplied’? Why couldn’t Lewis speak authoritatively about what he thinks he knows about an otherwise fictional email the existence of which only Steve Lewis and whoever supplied him with it have any (admitted) knowledge? LOL.

  178. A reasonable distraction joni – the Azzurri put a a little bit of fight for a while tonight against the young Wallabies…

  179. With indulgence Mr Speaker: Missed the Wallaby game – was at a very nice Vietnamese/French restaurant in Slutty Hills earlier.

  180. Vietnamese/French sounds interesting – son was lead astray to many different restaurants in the Surry hills area over Christmas/ New Year when he was working in Sydney CBD for 3 months – mainly by Korean / Japanese / Swedish / Korean students from where he was staying (near Redfern oval I think it was).

    http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2009-06-04.92.1
    is all I’ve been able to find so far

  181. “Miglo, on June 20th, 2009 at 7:18 pm”

    Best comment ever.

  182. Here’s an impeccable source 😆 Glenn Milne

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25666837-421,00.html

    There’s the unsubstantiated allegations from Turnbull but there still seems to be only the unsolicited faxed emails as “proof”…

  183. lol @ the Angry Dwarf.

  184. The focus is now on the emails and not the ute.
    But there is a smell about the ute. Originally it was being passed off as supposedly an old rust bucket used by Rudds electoral office.
    Now it appears that Rudd used it for “paddock bashing” for about 6 years. Really?
    It would have been near new back then, and something of reasonable value. Kept registered all the time too, apparently.

  185. Anything to tar Rudd eh John.

    I would really like to see how those so quick to denigrate Rudd here and have him guilty (of anything over the last 18 months) would be commenting if this were Howard.

    Oh wait, I know. When Howard used tax payers money to get his brother out of the shit the conservative pundits were defending it and barely a whimper was raised.

    When it boils down to it these things will always divide along ideological lines with a scattering of sensibilities in the middle.

    ————————-
    As predicted the whole thing is now being shifted onto Swan as it turns out the email almost certainly is fake. Turnbull is running a mile and the right wing media are doing their darnedest to demand Swan immediately stand down.

    If Swan goes, Turnbull should. He has shown that he is willing to damn someone purely on hearsay without doing the right thing and checking the facts. That is not the action of a potential leader of this country.

  186. Oh by the way John, Rudd fully declared the ute to its full value under pecuniary interest. He never hid it or stated he had not received the vehicle from his friend.

    So now lets go back and damn every politician who has ever declared gifts as pecuniary interests. Of course not, this is a constantly bash Rudd exercise and only hold him to account for every menial thing, even things done by every other PM in the past. Only Rudd is to be accountable.

  187. Adrian/Mobius ‘Strip’ Echo,

    Anything to tar Rudd eh John

    Are you even able to address an issue without attributing motives to those who disagree with your point-of-view, or turning any criticism of the current government into some grand conspiracy between the opposition and their accomplices in the media? Your constant claims of the government-as-victims are becoming exceedingly tiresome.

  188. As are your constant trivial attacks Tony. This goes both ways.

    Start addressing the real issues and government failures which you sometime do, but this constant making mountains out of molehills gets very tiresome Tony. And I’m not saying it is some grand conspiracy, it is fact and happening.

    You only have to go back to the time Rudd rose to prominence to see the sheer amount of banality that has been levelled against him since that time.

  189. I don’t make “trivial attacks”, Adrian, “constant” or otherwise. My ‘method’, when not offering opinion, is to point out errors of fact or logic, made by other commenters here, or in the statements made by the various players in a particular topic.

  190. Apparently the photo of the Turnbull and Charlton exchange at the Mid Winter Ball was taken by the PM on his Blackberry.

    Why would the PM do that?

  191. Mobius Ecko, on June 21st, 2009 at 9:02 am Said:
    “You only have to go back to the time Rudd rose to prominence to see the sheer amount of banality that has been levelled against him since that time.”

    Adrian, I’ll take your word for, you seem to be able to see it so much better than me.

  192. No John, as usual you bring it back to an attack on a posters credibility.

    You don’t have to take my word at all, just take off your ideological blinkers and look at all the crap that has been thrown at Rudd and the government from day one, even at one time against their pet killing parts of a lawn. Please spare me!

    When that stops then I can stop going on about it.

    —————–
    Fair enough Tony, but my point is that there has been an inordinate amount of trivial attacks made on this government and Rudd, and as has been pointed out by one or two from the Parliament press gallery, it appears to be a deliberate tactic of constant smear to put doubt as to the character of the PM and to the qualification of the government to govern.

    If you don’t believe that a considerable portion of the media have been indulging in this then you are less well read than I would have thought.

  193. Just to keep going on about this to annoy you even more.

    As a comparative example.

    Was there anywhere near as much scrutiny and media fuss made over the tax payers money Howard gave to his brother to get him out of shit, which was an abuse of power?

  194. There’s been a bit made of Grech’s demeanour as being indicative of , to paraphrase Barry Cassidy

    “Someone with an air of knowing a truth they didn’t want to tell”

    and similar comments that he (Grech) appeared stressed, bullied etc.

    I just turned off “insiders” after hearing a series of opinions reflecting the same sort of bias.

    FFS !

    The same characteristics could be indicative of many things, not least that of being that he may be lying, or have been “conned” into committing to something he was unsure of, and realised (belatedly) how tenuous his “recollection” was.

    Why is this never mentioned ? Seems just as valid a hypothesis to me as the opinions of such”experts” on someone’s body languge as evidence of “something”.

  195. Adrian, I don’t know how long you have been politically aware, but what you claim is happening to Rudd and co has always happened as far as I know, it’s just the ability of things such as the internet to bring it to the attention of youngsters like yourself that has changed.
    Politics in the 50’s and 60’s was dirty, real dirty. Allegations of communist leanings, personal lives exposed, shonky business dealings, assassination attempts etc etc. To be a politician then, you had to be a very robust person.
    What matters most is not the attacks on any of our leaders, but their ability to shrug them off. Politics is all about survival of the fittest, and we certainly don’t want a system that allows the biggest wimp to run the show.
    Howard might have been a bit old school, but he understood how the game works. Whoever was willing to take the job over his dead body would have been seen by him as a worthy leader. He knew Costello was a wimp but gave him every opportunity to prove otherwise, as well as any of the others.
    Now you are wanting to deny the current leadership the same opportunity to prove they are not wimps.
    Perhaps deep down you are afraid that they just may be.

  196. Pterosaur, I take it you saw the actions by Martine for the ten or so minutes prior to Grech answering the questions?

    Putting body language aside lets concentrate on Grech’s answers…to cut to the chase he had a buck on each way in an attempt to appease all but I suspect his career is finished!

    I put it to you that you are attempting to shoot the messenger.

  197. What matters most is not the attacks on any of our leaders, but their ability to shrug them off. Politics is all about survival of the fittest, and we certainly don’t want a system that allows the biggest wimp to run the show.

    This is a sad indication of our political situation. That it is acceptable to make attacks on a person (substantiated or not) simply because they are a politician. I know it is expected and has been occurring forever now, but that doesn’t make it right to me – just an indication that political debate seems forever bound to stay in the gutter.

    On the actual topic, I think we’re going to see a “Swan dive” (as joni has so nicely put it) and a very damaged Turnbull stubbornly cling to leadership. I don’t think anyone in the Liberal Party wants to take on the mantle of losing the next election, but Turnbull would be too damaged after this to get them to rally together properly.

  198. Was that Sen Abetz asking the questions in the clip on Insiders? What a total smartarse prick he came across as.

  199. And it would appear that Swan is also getting pretty damn bold. This lends weight to the idea that the email never existed and makes you wonder who set this up.

  200. Scaper

    “I put it to you that you are attempting to shoot the messenger.”

    No.

    Just wondering at the assumptions being made, by those in no position to make same, about reading another’s body language, and their motivation in only pursuing one avenue of interpretation, while posing as “impartial”.

    I did see the interview.

  201. Pterosaur, I’m in a fine position to form an opinion.

    Perhaps you would like to attempt to answer one question…why did the PM take a photo of Charlton and Turnbull at the Mid Winter Ball with his Blackberry and release it to the media?

  202. My ‘method’, when not offering opinion, is to point out errors of fact or logic, made by other commenters here, or in the statements made by the various players in a particular topic.

    A biased method to be sure tony, it is usually only used against those of the supposed ‘left’, whilst managing to let through or totally ignore numerous errors of fact and logic in statements made by conservative commenters.

    So now lets go back and damn every politician who has ever declared gifts as pecuniary interests.

    To me, this is the crux of the problem.
    Why do pollies even need to accept gifts? It shouldn’t matter whether they place it on the pecuniary register or not, the rot will stop when they stop accepting gifts. In my job I’m told that it is not professional behaviour and against a ‘code of conduct’ to accept gifts – why is it different for politicians, business and/or the wealthy and powerful?

  203. Scaper, I haven’t challenged your right (or ability) to hold an opinion – merely to point out that “opinions” are just that, and no more.

    Not fact, not evidence, and not necessarily correct.

    WRT the photo – I’ve no idea, but I reckon it would be hard to pass up the opportunity, for any politician, given the games they play – I would say though, in my opinion, it does look like Mal’s acting a bit nastily.

  204. B.Tolputt, on June 21st, 2009 at 10:12 am

    Ben, I agree with you. But politicians have to learn not to throw sand on the line and give extra traction to those trying to run them down.
    On the other hand, when you listen to their inane and childish behaviour during playtime, otherwise known as the sitting of parliament, they deserve every bit of whatever is thrown at them. The more I see of their antics, the less respect I have for any of them.

  205. Kitty,

    I’ve never declared myself to be unbiased; I have, however, expressed my approval when certain commenters here have managed to come across that way. 😉

  206. johnd,

    On the other hand, when you listen to their inane and childish behaviour during playtime, otherwise known as the sitting of parliament, they deserve every bit of whatever is thrown at them. The more I see of their antics, the less respect I have for any of them.

    Have to agree with you there, johnd. As a matter of fact, I can’t help feeling just a little bit embarrassed when the speaker interrupts a parliamentary food-fight to introduce some foreign delegation or another.

  207. kittylitter, on June 21st, 2009 at 10:40 am Said:
    “Why do pollies even need to accept gifts? ”

    I recall in the 60’s talking to a local member recently elected. He arrived home from being sworn in to find his house full of new furniture. He made a point of having it returned to whoever took it upon themselves to express their support for him, and made it clear that it was not acceptable to do business that way.
    He served for many years always acting in the best interests of his constituents in his own way, but was never one of the boys when it came to his political colleagues which in many ways worked against the best interests of his constituents.

  208. Gillard has bought into it now…will Tanner grab the afternoon news bite?

    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25667027-952,00.html

  209. The Liberals when in government handed out billions to the media as payment for “government advertising”. Kevin from the beginning promised he in government would cut right back on that largesse.

    The media is in hard times due to decline in advertising revenue.

    I theorise that the media want the Liberals back, so the gravy-train is re-railed.

    Hence the campaign against Rudd and Labor, from the day he took over as Opposition leader.

    It’s not rocket science (which is why I can nut it out!). Follow the money.

  210. It may not be rocket-science, Caney, but I think you and your fellow media ‘troofers’ have got it wrong regardless. There is no concerted effort by some sinister media cabal to bring down the Rudd government. Full. Stop.

  211. Neil, the opposition’s job is NOT to ‘make allegations”, that’s up to shonky tabloid journalists, criminals and police alleging someone committed a crime. The job of oppositions is to demonstrate to the voting public that they would a viable and better government than those currently in government. At the rate the present opposition is going, even the voters in NSW would find them hard to recommend.

    johnd, on June 21st, 2009 at 8:15 am Said:

    “But there is a smell about the ute. Originally it was being passed off as supposedly an old rust bucket used by Rudds electoral office.
    Now it appears that Rudd used it for “paddock bashing” for about 6 years. Really?
    It would have been near new back then, and something of reasonable value. Kept registered all the time too, apparently.”

    Well, obviously he’s a crook and should be slung out of office. How dare he declare the vehicle to its full monetary value and THEN have the unmitigated gall to register it all the time!!!! My God! If anyone wanted proof of his dishonesty and that he’d mislead the parliament, this is it.

    And of course there’s his unbelievable story that he used his own vehicle for recreation! It’s just getting worse and worse.

    You should ring up Steve Lewis and Malvolio about it and read an email to them. They’ll be only too happy to bring the full weight of the tabloid press and the tabloid opposition to bear.

    And now we also have the breathless report that Wayne Swan also bought a vehicle from John Grant, whose dealership is 45km from where Swan lives!!!!!!!!!!!!! There you have it; in the face of this damning evidence it’s obvious the man mislead parliament and probably runs a two-up school in the dark corridors of Parliament House.

    All Blogocrats should be very afraid. All of us who’ve bought a vehicle from a car dealer more than 100m from home could face criminal charges and would mislead parliament at the drop of a distributor.

    BTolput, @10.25am. I just tried your link and it seems they’ve pulled it. I got page not found.

    Scaps, I thought you were better than that. Why is it so suspicious that the PM took some photos on his Mulberry? Can any of us honestly say we haven’t done the same? He probably took plenty of photos of lots of people. By coincidence, the Malvolio/Charlton exchange made its way into the press and that’s how come the photo did. Simple as that.

  212. This is a farce.

    Lemmie see if I have the basic facts right:

    1. We have a public servant saying he received a damaging email that, it turns-out, never existed (or at least, was never sent to his computer).

    2. We have a journo who somehow gets hold of this non-existent email and apparently leaks it to the Libs.

    3. Who, in turn never receive-it but nevertheless use it’s non-existent contents to bash the Government.

    4. Rudd calls-in the coppers and demands that the Libs or someone – aynone- produce the email so that they can conduct an investigation of the allegations.

    5. Silence all round. No-one, it seems, has the allegedly damaging document. Not the Public Servant; Not the Journo; Not the Libs.

    What a complete load of confected bollocks.

    Does the expression “beat-up” resonate with anyone else around here?

  213. Question: We have heard the PM and others state that the email is not on parliament’s network. What about either a private email account or a mobile device? Charlton could have sent it from his blackberry – does that go through the same network backups?

  214. Joni, I put this question here yesterday,June 20th, 2009 at 5:40 pm but got no response.

    As I also stated it could have been sent from a laptop with the same IP which is how my laptop is set up.

  215. joni, joni, if you’re going to use a document to launch an attack on anyone, ferfuxsakes make sure you’ve got a copy of it in your hot little mitts before you open your mouth.

    If you lot really want to see how it hould be done, hire the Charles Laughton version of Witness for The Prosecution (starring Marlene Deitrich) sometime, and watch a master at work.

    You don’t just shoot your mouth-off without having the evidence available or you’ll end-up looking like a gormless pratt.

  216. And BTW, any lawyer who made fraud and impropriety in public office allegations of this nature in a case without having the evidence at hand would end-up on the receiving end of disciplinary proceedings.

  217. Evan

    Absolutely I agree that Turnbull has a big problem referring to an email that he does not have possession of. I am just wondering if there are other legitimate sources for the email to be sent to Grech that were not from within the PMO.

  218. Scaper – in your case your laptop and desktop are attached to the same network, and so do get the same IP address. My question is whether a mobile device (blackberry, iPhone, etc) would have the same IP fingerprint or allow the same level of traceability.

    Charlton better be bloody sure that he did not send an email of the form that is alleged.

  219. You need a computer of net-linked phone to get emails. Im suppose it could have been sent to his home computer from the sender’s private computer. That would place the whole thing outside the Government network, but surely Godwin (where do they get these names?) would have remembered something as extrordinary as that.

    How many public servaints get emails from the boss outside the Government network at home?

    Anyhow, a quick search of his home computer logs would reveal it (even it its been deleted). No doubt the coppers will undertake such a search.

    But the esential fact of my criticism remains.

    How could the Libs be so stupid as to launch an attack without having a copy of the document?

  220. joni, you’ve still got to receive it – that’s where there’d be a record, unless it was sent from a private email address (by Charlton) to a private email address (Grech) – yeh right, that’s really going to happen! /sarc

    scaper, there’s a little more information than just IP addresses in mail headers. It’s too technical for me, but RFC 2822 gives details, if you’re interested.

  221. Excellent summary Evan. And re leaking it to the Libs, let’s not forget that Turnbull swears black and blue that he has never seen the email. Turnbull is having problems..office gossip isn’t good enough in Parliament, people expect you to have at least sighted the document if you are going to start slapping one’s fist upon the table.

    I am with Miglo:

    My conclusion?

    It’s about as important as deciding whether to have salad or vegies with tonight’s steak.

  222. What about either a private email account or a mobile device? Charlton could have sent it from his blackberry – does that go through the same network backups?

    Even if Charlton had sent it from his home computer, or a public computer at the local shopping centre, it would still show up as being received by Grech on his computer check record. Remember it was allegedly sent by Charlton to treasury official Grech on 19th. Feb. and no record of it exists.

  223. As I said, this is farce, played-out in Parliament and on the National Stage.

    If they keep-up with this sort of thing, the Libs aren’t going to get their backsides back onto the Treasury Benches for a very, very long time.

  224. bacchus and kitty,

    D’oh!

    Memo to joni: engage brain before attempting to think.

  225. Sorry..late as usual. I’ll never forget my criminal law lecturer’s statement, Never ask a question unless you know the answer.

    I must admit that I was amazed that Turnbull said that he had never sighted the document. It’s the same as agreeing to a contract on heresay.

  226. Kitty has it correct. It doesn’t matter where the damn email was sent from, if it was recieved by Grech – it’d have to go through his mail server. Given that there is apparently some law & software preventing the complete removal of emails from the system – it would have turned up in the search conducted.

  227. How could the Libs be so stupid as to launch an attack without having a copy of the document?

    I don’t think they care, they have quite a history of launching attacks based on forged or faked documents. I guess they don’t really care about honesty or decency, just as long as some mud sticks to their opponents. For the Libs it’s “the ends justifies the means”.

    Accountability, expectations and standards will always be higher for a Labor government.

  228. CONGRATULATIONS TO JONI AND REB on the occasion of your 1/2 million..sadly only hits and not $s.

    XXXXX

  229. Some interesting background from Hansard earlier this month.

    http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12054.pdf

    E39 and E40 is where the action is.

  230. A 1/2 Million hits eh?

    Outstanding.

  231. Yay, joni & reb. Many congrats on 1/2 million hits and to echo Min sadly no $$$. when I am the sole winner of Tuesday’s Lotto, I’ll sling in the odd multi $$$.

    Min et al, this has ever been the way of the Libtards. Sling enough mud and some will even stick to Jesus and Bhudda. I think the whole thing underlines how desperate Malvolio really is.

    As you’ve pointed out, even laymen know that if you’re going on a fishing expedition like Malvolio’s, you’d better have something pretty solid to back up your accusations. As those of us who use such language would say, Malvolio is all mouth and no trousers.

  232. Interesting reading scaper – I wonder, did Abetz know of the email? He seemed to be pretty sure of something by his line of questioning.

  233. Joni, I believe the opposition was informed on the first week of May so Abetz was setting it up.

    I believe the PM got wind of this in the second week of May and there has been positioning but this is not the end game.

  234. Um – I have no idea why that post went up… my apologies (and if joni could remove it I would be grateful)

  235. Jane I agree. A tried and true formula. I suspect that this is where my disappointment re Turnbull kicks in. Come to think of it, I can’t recall Costello ever being a part of these sort of tactics..

    Recent examples re trying to make mud stick are: Rudd is a wordy nerd – Rudd’s wife wears ugly clothes – Rudd has an evil temper.

    And then you get people who have never met the bloke coming up with statements such as We All Know that…. And of course they don’t know any such thing, they’ve just read it in the papers.

  236. Just sighted via The Age..Rudd has given Turnbull 24hrs to produce the email or resign.

  237. Gee, I thought Tanner would be next to pipe up!

    Now Bligh steps in…not exactly a plus for the PM or Treasure.

    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25667027-952,00.html

  238. All should be revealed tomorrow morning when Turnbull does/or doesn’t produce the email. As Swan has pointed out Mr Grant never received any Ozcar assistance. T’bull’s run has been shonky dealings with Rudd receiving a ute aka a paddock basher and that Grant received…umm what? Well, it seems that he didn’t receive anything at all.

    “If you look at the emails that are on the public record, what you can see is Mr Grant didn’t receive any assistance from OzCar or Ford Credit. He didn’t receive any assistance at all,” he said.

  239. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25667135-5003402,00.html

    Hockey has his say?

    Tomorrow is too interesting to go and work.

  240. As for Turnbull he could be in trouble. Did he say these things in parliment and mislead parliament???

    No, Neil, he said what he said outside Parliament, which could be a lot of fun, too, if one considers what ‘inside Parliament’ provides as a special forum that ‘outside Parliament’ doesn’t. 😉

  241. So much for the criticism that Rudd refused to comment pending a police investigation, Hockey also refuses to comment:

    “The Prime Minister has asked federal police to investigate this matter, now we don’t want to compromise that federal police investigation,” Mr Hockey said.

  242. (take two)

    Turnbull, Swan, Rudd wont be sacked, a warning at best to the looser. I find it weird the only thing liberals look for is dirt as no policy will get them through, same way Rudd won because more hated Howard(they want the public to hate Rudd so they have a chance).They dont have a chance unless the whole labor team blew up mysteriously.

    Its embarrassing to see any side of government act this way, the libs seem championed in this field.

  243. I notice i said similar stuff to jane, sorry for repeating some of it. I typed first and started to read some comments. Yeah im drunk , so i did it backwards. 🙂

  244. And now Big Mal reckons they’re “diverting attention” to the email.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/21/2604048.htm

    Did cause a bit of a chuckle !

  245. What if Turncoat (or someone he knows) has the email and he/she is sitting on it waiting to pounce?

    If Turncoat has gone to bat without physical evidence then he must be a lousy barrister and an even worse politician …

    … and here I was blaming him for the “lost Republic”, ’cause I believed he “sold out” to John Howard’s Monarchists … if he has no evidence, then he really is a dumbarse and even I have to struggle with that …

  246. Oh ok..I think that I have this. Mal will not be able to produce the email tomorrow, the one that he used to demand that Rudd stand down.

    And so now according to Turnbull the email is but a mere diversion re ‘the real issue’, this being Swan.

    Double pike with backflip.

    Mind you, Turnbull could be just telling porkies and he does have the email and he is going to flash it in front of everyone’s eyes tomorrow with an I told you so.

  247. Pterosaur, on June 21st, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    My god what an absolute joke. More than a little chuckle, a good guffaw on the utter stupidity of the opposition.

    For weeks they have been going on about absolute documentary evidence implicating the PM, and making a massive thing about it in parliament.

    Now apparently it’s the PM who is going on about an email as a distraction, an email they admit they never had or have never seen.

    And there are people who want these fools to rule the land?

  248. I think Hockey’s a bit off the mark here. I have a bit of a theory as to what’s happened here…..

    I think Grant asked Rudd whether he could get any assistance and Rudd passed a note off to staff to find out whether he qualified under the OzCar scheme. Absolutely nothing wrong in that. Charlton has contacted Grech with a slightly stronger instruction, either by email, memo, SMS, or something. Grech has acted on what he considered to be a special case and other Treasury officials have acted likewise, hence the emails copying in Henry and Swan. It was a kind of game of Chinese whispers.

    The problem is that Rudd and Swan denied any special treatment by them OR THEIR STAFF. This is where Swan is in trouble. He never sought that Grant get special treatment but he (Grant) did. Regardless of the actual finance outcome, there were staff in Treasury pushing Grant’s case. The convention of Ministerial Responsibility requires that, because of this, if only for the sake of the convention itself, Swan has to resign. I feel sorry for him because I doubt he knew anything about anything and I don’t think he’s a bad bloke, although I’m not sure he’s particularly competent as a Treasurer. But it did all happen in his department under his watch and most importantly, deliberately or otherwise, he denied that it had to Parliament.

    I think Rudd is a bastard, but I don’t think he deliberately sought favours for Grant. His problem is in his denial, if he ever gets caught (the document gets discovered). It’s clear that somewhere along the line an instruction reached Treasury that they think came from the PM that Grant get looked after. It is inconceivable that Grech made the whole thing up, and in the absence of an “alternative origination”, balance of probabilities suggests to me that it originated from the PM’s office. I think Treasury acted “beyond instruction” in pushing hard for the finance. In the absence of a “smoking gun” in the form of an email or other form of communication, Rudd will be ok, and Turnbull will be very shaky, although having Swan’s scalp, he will survive. If a communication is found, Rudd is well and truly stuffed and it will be Gillard v Turnbull.

    I’ve said it often, but Rudd has a problem of little face saving lies that are simply not necessary. Borrowman, Sunrise, Burke, Scores, childhood destitution……it all represents a pattern of behaviour, little lies that don’t much matter but will end up being the end of him.

  249. I came across this quote today by a fellow named Ralph Marston. If I didn’t know better I’d say that it was directed at the RWDBs that post on Blogocrats.

    Let go of your attachment to being right, and suddenly your mind is more open. You’re able to benefit from the unique viewpoints of others, without being crippled by your own judgement.

  250. Mobius Ecko, on June 21st, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    We just know Saddam has WMDs. Those metal tubes are highly suspicious. Curveball Grech half-remembers something. Steve Lewis sexed up the dossier. Invade. ;).

  251. Mobius Ecko, on June 21st, 2009 at 4:49 pm Said:

    “For weeks they have been going on about absolute documentary evidence implicating the PM, and making a massive thing about it in parliament.”

    Really?? For weeks?? First I heard about documentary evidence was when Charlton was mercilessly “Bullied and threatened” at the ball last week. When did you first hear of this “absolute documentary evidence”?

  252. James

    Fair assessment. But where you say the “convention of Ministerial Responsibility requires that, because of this, if only for the sake of the convention itself, Swan has to resign”.

    I have been looking over Hansard this afternoon – and cannot find anything where Swan actually misled parliament. This is the question from Turnbull:

    My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the evidence given by one of his officials in estimates today that the Treasurer’s office had made two representations on behalf of car dealers to OzCar, the taxpayer funded special purpose vehicle, which provides finance to car dealers and which is administered by the Treasury. Has the Treasurer or his office, or anyone on his behalf, made representations to OzCar on behalf of Ipswich Central Motors, John Grant Motors or any other car dealership owned or associated with John Grant?

    And here is Swan’s reply:

    It is the case that Mr Grant made representations to my office, and he was referred on to the SPV, just like everybody else. I have no idea what the outcome of that was. But it is entirely normal that, in circumstances where car dealers right around this country were potentially going to the wall, car dealers would have been ringing members of parliament, including the Treasurer’s office, asking how they could make contact with this organisation in the Treasury establishing the vehicle. That is the situation—an entirely normal situation, as the Treasury officials have reported in estimates today.

  253. The problem is that Rudd and Swan denied any special treatment by them OR THEIR STAFF. This is where Swan is in trouble. He never sought that Grant get special treatment but he (Grant) did.

    Ah, but there is the technical, hair-splitting rub…did Grant ‘get’ special treatment? What special treatment DID Grant get at the end of the day? To be a lie it has to be a lie, and a lie by definition allows no ambiguity as to what it is, if it’s to be a hanging offence.

  254. The difficulty with the theory of Rudd and Swan ‘pushing Grant’s case’ is that Grant never actually received anything.

    From previous..

    “If you look at the emails that are on the public record, what you can see is Mr Grant didn’t receive any assistance from OzCar or Ford Credit. He didn’t receive any assistance at all,” he said.

    That is, it’s a bit tricky to pursue the argument that Rudd and Swan were pushing for favors when Grant received none.

  255. Oh c’mon off it James.

    What about this scenario, equally as valid.

    Swan is absolutely correct in what he states about the correspondence that comes through to his home contact address.

    Rudd did nothing and the email was a fake all along, concocted by either the Liberals (who have form in faking stuff) or a right wing journalist in an attempt to implicate Rudd in an impropriety.

    Malcolm who really is a bastard amongst a den of bastards will say or do anything to get into power so jumps at what he thinks is a chance to bring Rudd down. If an email is not produced then it is Malcolm who should stand down for sheer ineptitude at the minimum, but mainly because of the fact he so readily and savagely went into attack insisting a leader of a country stand down on the flimsiest of pretences, and made misleading innuendo and statements throughout in doing this. Then when his house of cards falls down he shifts focus to the next government lackey down the chain to get the attention off himself.

  256. I reckon a dingo did it!

    The is an investigation in place to get to the truth, I believe any evidence should be presented to the AFP.

    I also reckon we should revisit this thread after the investigation has concluded and the report is released.

    Would be very interesting.

  257. Where is Steve Lewis this weekend? He’s sitting the biggest crisis story of the week, the year, the Government out as a journalist with an especial interest in, and unique knowledge of, the blockbuster that is?

  258. So who will take Turncoats job? Hockey? Bishop? Payne?

    Who wouldn’t call a DD under these circumstances …

    … and what if Turncoat was actually set up to lose *his* job …

    … and did Tip Custard foreshadow his resignation in the same week as “ute gate” to keep his hands clean, knowing it was politically dangerous and may backfire … he wouldn’t want the leadership “given” to him – would he?

    James we can all speculate BUT – I’ll bet the Government does better out of this fracas than the Opposition …

  259. Legion,

    Steve Lewis and the opposition have laid low today. Is this because there is no email and they are planning a way out of the inevitable sh*t-storm? Or, do they have the email, and are preparing to release it at a time of their choosing?

    If there is no email, Mr Turnbull should resign on the grounds of sheer incompetence.

    If the email exists, the pressure will be squarely back on Mr Rudd and Mr Swan.

    Either way, this week will be enthralling.

  260. TB Queensland, on June 21st, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    Exactly re Custard Tip. My theory is Custard Tip saw that Turdball might be about to go up in flames. So he (Custard), as the next in line, fled the scene before the leadership baton could be thrust into his shaking hands.

    He’d run a mile rather than take on the top job.

    Custard’s timely departure I see as ominous for the ex-merchant banker.

  261. Malcolm should learn to stop ‘leaking like a sieve’ when he’s playing rhetorician, methinks, if nothing else; his attempted parry still cuts himself to the core when his words are turned back on him, as they inevitably will be, particularly the arrogance and gall theme, and the implicit admission that he wuz tricked. Interesting and enthralling times, indeed.

  262. Maybe the dingo was the PM’s dog in disguise?

    The plot thickens…

  263. Joni, it’s that Grant was named in, as I understand it, many more emails than others, it’s in that Grech has evidenced that Grant was more than just the usual constituent, and it’s in the written evidence that personal Treasury action would be taken to further Grant’s case.

    Adrian, the problem with your scenario is that Treasury would have to have magically just taken it upon themselves to decide that Grant was a special case, as indicated by the documentary and sworn evidence. And yes, I agree that Malcolm is a bastard. To me, this is like watching Carlton play Essendon in the mud and there’s an all in brawl. I hope they kick the shit out of each other. You really need to stop trying to pigeon hole me, Adrian, I’m not on Turnbull’s side in this. But Rudd is a snake, and I hope he goes.

  264. It’s just speculation of course, but the timing of Costello’s decision to depart is interesting…in between Turnbull’s first mooting of ‘a something other’ re the rusty ute and his Turnbull’s admission that he had not even sighted the email.

    Either: Costello thought that Turnbull was on a winner and knew that with ‘the big win’ under his belt that Costello may as well call it quits.

    Or: Costello knew that T’bull was p’ing unto the wind and thought to depart with his dignity intact.

  265. Adrian, how many weeks ago did you hear about the Libs claiming to have “absolute documentary evidence”?

  266. James of North Melbourne, on June 21st, 2009 at 5:42 pm

    What’s your comparative sample of ‘specialness’; special is normally with reference to some standard of normal? Swan has mentioned ‘normal’ a couple of times; the Opposition keep hammering on as if Grant is sui generis; you don’t have a standard for normal from which to make an assessment beyond the players’ self-interested assertions about what is and isn’t special or normal.

  267. I would be looking at why the Senators and Martine attempted to prevent Grech from answering the questions.

    Surely, if there was nothing to hide why this action?

    Yep, the dingo is the key.

  268. I would be looking at why the Senators and Martine attempted to prevent Grech from answering the questions.

    Because he isn’t allowed to mislead the Senate either, and he’s being asked for definitive answers to leading questions at or beyond his on-the-spot mental fingertips?

  269. Wow!

    Do you expect me to believe that?

  270. Do you expect me to believe that?

    Well, you have two main choices, there: a) Martine owes Grech an official duty of care in his dealings in the Senate; or b) it’s a cover-up when Martine exercises that duty of care.

  271. Does the Senators have a duty of care and did you see what what happened prior to Grech answering the questions?

  272. scaper…, on June 21st, 2009 at 5:50 pm Said:

    I would be looking at why the Senators and Martine attempted to prevent Grech from answering the questions.

    I hate to bring this back to the previous government but Howard also prevented PS’s from answering questions and went further in stopping PS’s from attending Senate Estimates.

    I don’t know if this is standard practice and it has been going on for as long as Senate Estimates or it was something the previous government introduced.

  273. The answer is that it is all just speculation unless Turnbull fronts up with the email tomorrow, and so we’ll just have to wait and see.

  274. Why has the Treasurer been excluded in the terms of reference in the Inquiry?

  275. Because he isn’t allowed to mislead the Senate either, and he’s being asked for definitive answers to leading questions at or beyond his on-the-spot mental fingertips?

    And what Eric Abetz was asking of Grech in Senate Estimates was Grech’s opinion on what the government may have wanted, Grech’s opinion is not fact.

    News on at the moment and Turnbull is saying that they don’t have a copy of the email.

  276. scaper…, on June 21st, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    Yes Scaper, I’m sure they also take their duties of care towards witnesses brought before them very seriously, in addition to a desire not to have themselves or the Senate misled. 😉

  277. Observation: To the best of my knowledge, in no other institution in which a witness is compelled to answer questions under oath can someone other than the witness who is asked the question answer, or deflect, that question. That’s what happened in the Senate enquiry with Mr Grech and his boss.

  278. Objection, your Honour!

  279. *That’s what appeared to happen

  280. scaper, as far as a “witness” goes Grech really isn’t much good to either “side” of politics … contrast poor Grech against the “grilling” and ripost by Henry!

    Chalk and cheese! Grech is a poor innocent being crucified (sacrificed) by the Liberals …

    TV news and Turncoat has no email, ie no evidence – conclusion – the man is a moron …

    What annoys the $#!t out of me is the ineptness of the Opposition – p!$$ weak Opposition makes the Government lazy – not good for any of us …

  281. James.

    Turnbull has been going on about something more sinister in the ute affair and evidence of it for a a few weeks now.

    This from a 4th of June Courier Mail article, but Malcolm had gone on about it before this as well.

    Mr Rudd had come under fire from Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull over declarations in relation to a car he was given as a gift.

    Mr Turnbull said a Senate estimates hearing had revealed that the offices of the prime minister and treasurer had both made representations to Oz Car.

  282. Oh, except the witnesses legal representative, if they believe the question is out-of-order for some reason, for example. Are you saying Mr Martine was acting as Mr Grech’s de facto legal representative?

  283. *witness’s

  284. Adrian, where in all that was “absolute documentary evidence”?

  285. Mobius..good one. That was Turnbull’s original argument, that the ute was ‘a gift’.

  286. TB, have you read the pages on my link to Hansard June 4th?

    These questions were taken on notice so Grech had plenty of time to prepare but for some reason went to water the other day?

    Doesn’t anyone here see the peculiarities or have the Kangas already made judgements?

  287. Min, of those two sentences I think you picked the wrong one as Malcolm’s original argument. His point is contained in the second one:

    Mr Turnbull said a Senate estimates hearing had revealed that the offices of the prime minister and treasurer had both made representations to Oz Car.

  288. Abetz in grilling Grech was the best I’ve ever seen him, completely out of character for him. A real chip of the Faulkner block.

    I hope he remains in this frame and doesn’t fall back to the baseless and idiotic statement that is is normal stock and trade and that seems to plaque the Liberals.

  289. scaper, have you ever been *grilled* by a *committee*, I have and it is not pleasant – particularly if it is a *hangman* committee … and you can’t win!

  290. Legion at 5.49pm…..

    I would suggest that if Grant were the subject of more representations and/or stronger representations than the other finance applicants, that would suggest that he were a “special” case. That is evidenced in the documents. I would further contend that if a Treasury employee gives evidence that says that Grant was afforded special treatment, then that is further evidence that Grant was a “special” case. Remember it’s the actions of Treasury here, not just Swan, that we are talking about. There was special treatment, Swan has said there wasn’t. Therefore Swan has to resign. Like I said earlier, I don’t think Swan ever actually set out deliver special treatment to Grant, there is certainly no evidence that he did, but special treatment was given, and this was subsequently denied by Swan. Under the convention of Ministerial Responsibility, he must resign.

  291. Ok James where is your absolute evidence for the scenario you proffered?

    Go research Hansard, Turnbull was making innuendo on the ute affair being much more than just a pecuniary gift for a short while now, and hinting at there being documentary evidence. The alleged email (fake or real) was dated the 19th of February.

    So when did it come to Turnbull’s attention and when was it read to him as he claimed?

  292. TB, Grech got a fair grilling on the fourth of this month and he didn’t go to water.

    I base my opinion on the transcript and Sherry was interjecting during that episode.

  293. James of North Melbourne, on June 21st, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    That is evidenced in the documents.

    Where? You show me one document that looks at a sample which isn’t Grant. 😉

  294. The next poll will be interesting.

  295. Tony, on June 21st, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    Yes, that’s what I’m saying, Tony. It’s a thing which attaches to office, not to person; none of those people were there in their personal capacities, but as Government officials of one kind or another, owing a whole host of official duties in their various official capacities.

  296. Pterosaur @4.36pm. Lol! Malvolio’s got more positions than the Karma Sutra. Only yesterday he was trumpeting about Rudd misleading parliament, calling for his resignation and claiming the government was trying to divert attention from that all-important email.

    Today the email is the diversion, Rudd doesn’t get a guernsey and Swan’s the one misleading parliament or something.

    Tony @5.23pm, if they had their sweaty paws on the alleged email, Malvolio would’ve splashed it over every news medium in the country by now.

    He’s kicked an own goal and I suspect Rudd and Swan now have him firmly in their sights. He’s been set up and will lose what little credibility he had.

    Good riddance. He’s rubbish at the job he broke his neck to wrest from Nelson’s dying grasp. I feel confident Nelson couldn’t have been more ham fisted and he must be lurking in a closet so the sound of his roars of laughter can’t be heard all over the house.

    If he doesn’t fall on his sword, he’ll be a lame duck for the duration. Unfortunately, the problem is there is a complete lack of talent anywhere in the parliamentary liberal party which is a disaster and can be laid squarely at the Rodent’s feet.

    Yes, Neil et al, it IS the Rodent’s fault. He made certain that anyone with scruples, integrity and talent was blocked at every turn, so he would be the centre of attention.

    Instead of mentoring their future leaders, he actively chose to do the opposite. He was and is a mean-spirited, small-minded, spiteful little man, with an over-weening ego and bugger-all talent, and they are his good points.

    TB, I don’t think Tip would have been privy to the machinations, but I suspect if he had, he would have rolled his eyes, smirked knowingly and kept right out of it.

    I’d love to know who engineered the thing though. It was a master stroke, but you’d think they would have been much more cautious after Scientologygate in SA. Who’dathunkit! Lightning striking twice in the same place!

  297. Adrian, I only proffered it as a theory. I said “I have a bit of a theory…” I don’t need evidence to advance a theory.

    What you stated about the “absolute evidence” you presented as historical fact. I’m simply asking how many weeks ago you first heard Turnbull claim “absolute documentary evidence”.

    Legion, on that claim I am relying on what appears to be a consensus of journalistic opinion. For example http://www.theage.com.au/national/labor-truly-stumped-on-ozcar-email-20090620-crz9.html

  298. Fair enough, Legion, although I don’t see how such a process as a Senate enquiry can be effective if, when a particular public servant is asked a question about their personal knowledge of a matter, a more senior public servant is able to deflect the question on the grounds that any knowledge of the matter was gained while the witness was performing their duties as a public servant.

  299. well said Jane.

    I think Malculm has been hoist by his own petard

  300. Jane, Nelson would have been a better leader than Turnbull in my biased opinion.

    Turnbull back stabbed Nelson at every opportunity and I for one will enjoy the day that Turnbull gets his Karma.

    I’m not convinced yet that the day is near.

  301. OK my phrasing was wrong and of course you as the purveyor of absolute honesty on this board so you can call people liars as is your want picked it up.

    Turnbull first hinted at evidence or something untoward at the beginning of this month:

    Turnbull demands transparency over ALP car deals

    John Grant at the beginning of this month on the accusation being raised the week before.
    Nothing beaut about Rudd’s loaned ute, says owner

    So I guess now it falls back onto Turnbull to tell the police or the AG exactly when he was told about supposed documentary evidence.

  302. jane, on June 21st, 2009 at 6:42 pm Said

    Jane you could be correct about Howard. But you really do not know what someone is like until you live or work with them. As for your comments about mentoring future leaders, please tell me how many leaders were mentored by Bob Hawke when he was PM from 1983-1991. Did he hand over his job to Keating willingly???

    On another topic is it been pointed out that Rudd took the photograph of Charlton talking with Turnbull on his blackberry. Just wondering why Rudd did this?? It was then published in the newspapers. So Rudd must have given this photograph to a newspaper. Govt equipment (mobile phone) being used to take pictures at a govt function and then published in a newspaper. Nothing wrong with this but hasn’t Rudd got better things to do than to give photographs he has taken to a newspaper???

  303. scaper @6.55pm, to be honest, I agree with you. I don’t reckon Nelson would have taken the bait, no matter how tempting.

    And although he’s a bit lame, he’s not a walking ego like Trunchbull. Somehow, he doesn’t seem to have that ultra nasty streak possessed by Trunchbull and the Rodent, either.

  304. Jane, no matter what is said about Nelson, at the end of the day he is still a Liberal. His agenda, like theirs all, was (is) to steal the workplace conditions of future generations of employees. So that makes him little more than a traitor to our and his own descendants. Despicable.

  305. I think Insiders was saying the photo was taken on Rudd’s blackberry – not thatit was taken by Rudd. Small point I know but I worth noting.

  306. Caney, what exactly was it about Workchoices that you find so despicable?

  307. Turnbull wants to say that Rudd using the email as a diversion when he himself mentioned it in his attack on Rudd on the 20th:

    On the face of the evidence, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has also misled Parliament.
    His claim that neither he nor his office made representations to Treasury on behalf of Mr Grant has been directly contradicted by the key Treasury official, Mr Godwin Grech.
    Mr Grech says he was first made aware of Mr Grant’s issues via a communication from the Prime Minister’s Office. He also says he recalls an email from the Prime Minister’s Office. He also says he recalls an email from the Prime Minister’s office relating to this matter.
    Mr Rudd must explain what communications occurred between his office and the Treasury on this matter.

  308. Well spotted joni – a small but possibly very relevant distinction.

    Off topic, but an interesting take by the Brian Toohey on Costello’s career at the end of Insiders this morning too (for someone in the “extreme right wingers” seat)…

  309. And the ball and vase are creeping back into their rightful position behind the lonely-boy seat.

  310. Joni it was Grech that mentioned the e-mail. Turnball was just commenting on what Grech has said. Why should Turnball produce the e-mail??

  311. Why did he say to Charlton that he should not lie to protect Rudd? If it was not about the email – then what was it about?

    And notice how Turnbull avoid the direct question at the doorstop on Saturday:

    QUESTION:
    When did you first see the email?
    MALCOLM TURNBULL:
    Well the email itself, the existence of the email – I don’t have a copy of the email I hasten to add, I do not have a copy of the email so the email is presumably in the possession of those people between whom it passed. Mr Lewis has an account of it, that was not provided to him by us.

    He started to answer and I think then realised what the implications were – so quickly changed to saying that he had never seen the email.

  312. Another interesting development from the executive director of the Motor Traders Association of Australia, Michael Delaney.

    The MTAA has more than 1400 car dealer members, and Mr Delaney was a key player in lobbying the Government late last year to set up OzCar as a vehicle to provide finance for customers in the wake of pressure for big US finance providers to pull out of the local market because of the global recession.

    The Ten Network reported that Mr Delaney had “dozens” of faxes showing the Treasury official in charge of OzCar, Godwin Grech, was following up dealers’ applications for finance.

    But the Ten Network report said Mr Delaney had received an email from Mr Charlton that was subsequently forwarded to Mr Grech, suggesting it could have been the source of Mr Grech’s confusion on Friday.

    The thot plickens…
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25668502-29277,00.html

  313. I’ve missed much of the news over the weekend.

    So someone might explain why evidence of the email is o important.

    As I see it, Rudd denied to parliament he or anyone in his office made representations on behalf a car dealer who provided Rudd with a car.

    A treasury official provided evidence to a Senate estimates committee that representations had been made by Rudd’s office.

    Regardless of whether an email exists or not, Rudd has a big problem.

    I’d suggest that his problem is bigger than that of Turnbull, I’m not sure there is any suggestion that he has misled parliament.

  314. Tom

    A treasury official provided evidence to a Senate estimates committee that representations had been made by Rudd’s office.

    Not quite – Grech prefaced his comment saying that he could very well be wrong about the email. But Turnbull was (possibly) referring to the email when he confronted Charlton, and Abetz on the 4th June (?) also seemed to pretty certain that there was an email or something between Charlton and Grech.

  315. Where to start? Let’s try James of North Melbourne who said:

    I said “I have a bit of a theory…” I don’t need evidence to advance a theory

    James, if you want to be taken seriously, you do need some evidence to advance or sustain a ‘theory’ otherwise you have a ‘hypothesis’ which in this instance is best described as ‘speculation’ and that’s being kind.

    Then we have:

    There was special treatment, Swan has said there wasn’t. Therefore Swan has to resign

    James, you really need to hit the books and hit them hard. Given your naive definition of ‘special treatment’ , Swan should also resign because last week he spoke to me but didn’t speak to you and therefore he gave me ‘special treatment’. What nonsense! As is agreed by:

    Like I said earlier, I don’t think Swan ever actually set out deliver special treatment to Grant, there is certainly no evidence that he did

    ‘No evidence he did’? Really, he mentioned Grant’s name (directly or indirectly – who cares) to a Treasury official. Did he mention yours or did he mention mine? FGS, he can’t do his job without your hopelessly naive definition of ‘special treatment’.

    Finally, we have the absolute nonsense of:

    Under the convention of Ministerial Responsibility, he must resign

    I take it that Government 101 is up for study next semester? as i say – hit the books hard because your definition of ‘Ministerial responsibility’ needs lots of work.

  316. Tom of Melbourne, on June 21st, 2009 at 9:09 pm Said:

    Regardless of whether an email exists or not, Rudd has a big problem.

    What?

  317. Listening-to Joe Hockey on the 7pm news and reading all the confected froth and bubble some of the Libs have come-up with on this topic here is enough to drive anyone to drink.

    As a matter of fact, I’m chugging-away now. A nice Rutherglen fortified, no less.

    I feel like I’ve been sat-down and forced to listen to the Greatest Hits of Dr Demento over and over and just can’t get Star Trekking Across the Universe outa my mind.

    Oh well.

    Here’s something I posted at LP you lot might enjoy:

    Apropos of the Phantom Email no-one’s seen, here’s a little ditty poor Malcolm is probably turning-over in his mind even as we speak ( with apologies to Hughes Mearns):

    “As Mal was walking up the stair
    He found an email that wasn’t there.
    It wasn’t there again today.
    I bet he wishes he’d stayed away.”

  318. More from the doorstop:

    QUESTION:
    With respect Mr Turnbull this issue before it was brought up by the media and before it was brought up by the Senators was brought up, the issue of this correspondence, was brought up by yourself. Are you now running away from that?
    MALCOLM TURNBULL:
    We asked questions in the parliament. These issues are raised, we asked questions. The question of an email or the question of a representation relating from Mr Grant was first raised, in fact, in Senate estimates. We followed that up with questions in the House of Representatives and it has gone on from there.

    Note how he is now saying that it was Abetz in the senate who started the email story. Malcolm cannot get away quick enough from the email. But the press knows what he has been saying to them – I think Swan alluded to this this morning – which might be why they are persisting with this line of questioning.

    Taxi for Mr Turnbull.

  319. Regardless of whether Rudd directed that an enquiry be made of treasury, it seems that someone in his office probably did.

    Rudd made a categorical statement that no one did.

    I can’t quite see why a senior treasury official would engage in any speculation – you know, “balance of convenience”.

    As I said, I’ve not followed the news for a few days, but I can’t qsee why Turnbull seems to be a focus here.

  320. Regardless of whether Rudd directed that an enquiry be made of treasury, it seems that someone in his office probably did.

    Rudd made a categorical statement that no one did.

    I can’t quite see why a senior treasury official would engage in any speculation – you know, “balance of convenience”.

    As I said, I’ve not followed the news for a few days, but I can’t quite see why Turnbull seems to be a focus here.

  321. I should have added: Thanks. The grog’s great.

    And Mal can’t find reverse either.

    Beam me -up please, Scotty.

  322. Yes we are debating how many angels can sit (or dance) on the head of a pin.

    Personally, I can’t understand how anyone believes that Ministers, including the PM, Treasurer as well as ALL members of Parliament, aren’t supposed to make representations on behalf of constituents. FGS, imagine the outcry if they refused to do same.

    The question is whether they made ‘improper’ representations. You do, forced an outcome that was ‘unusual’ or ‘unwarranted’ like Howard did for Stan. In this instance there is absolutely no evidence of an improper outcome for a small-time car dealer in Ipswich.

    Now if one wants to talk about serious corruption involving serious money look (even fleetingly) at the relationship between Howard and the Packers.

  323. Tony, on June 21st, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    It’s an interesting point, and I tend to think that young Godwin should be fully encouraged to witness to what he actually knows, and be constrained fully where he might overstep that mark to witness to what he thinks he knows but doesn’t know or what he thinks he thinks he knows but doesn’t actually know, should he be taken or encouraged down that path in an environment where he, Godwin, is vouching for the veracity of his witnessing(s) to what he does know, not what he thinks he knows or what he thinks he thinks he knows. That goes double where young Godwin is meant to be answering questions about someone else’s knowledges – and their interactions with his actual knowledges, constructive knowledges and subjective impressions, for which young Godwin can’t possibly provide any actual knowledge per se, only ever impressions, which may or may not accord with the kind of truth demanded by a Senate.

    In other words, as a study of Godwin, the Senate questions were superb; as a study of Rudd or Swan, not so much. Which is why young James is left chanting ‘Ministerial Responsibility’ and young Godwin was close to tears for being placed in his politicised position and having to reveal his inner-most subjective thoughts about how he arranges his mind and the performance of his workaday, where he did provide Mr Grant with some really topnotch, so-good-it-was-‘special’ public service, and that kind of really good public service is a bad thing, apparently. 😉

  324. I think Rudd is stupid for accepting a ute from a car dealer in the first place.

    This entirely capable of being portrayed as equivalent to a financial reward.

    Use of a ute is worth about $1000+ a month. Not a lot, but not quite small change either.

    It was bad judgement, this controversy will damage him. I think he will look more and more like “just another politician”.

  325. From checking the facts that are available to the general public at this stage, it does appear as though Wayne Swan may have misled parliament.

    It is claimed that Godwin Grech has said that he may have seen an email from Rudd’s office asking for assistance for John Grant. If there was such an email, Rudd has also misled parliament.

    As far as I’m aware, Malcolm Turnbull has done nothing wrong, so calls that he may have to resign are simply absurd. The email, as far as any of us are aware, have nothing to do with Mr Turnbull. Rudd’s ultimatum is outrageous and the media are treating him very favourably in all this.

  326. Legion, on June 21st, 2009 at 9:48 pm Said:

    In other words, as a study of Godwin, the Senate questions were superb; as a study of Rudd or Swan, not so much.

    Indeed! Young Godwin possibly now understands that ‘reality’ goes far and beyond the thoughts of Milton Friedman and Friedrich August von Hayek (to use but two examples). In my (limited) experience, Treasury types, when moved out of their comfort zone of economic modelling and the like, reveal that their ‘certainties’ are simply a construction of reality that is only sustainable within a narrow commune of like-minded people.

    The unfortunate ‘reality’ is that those types wield such power, despite the havoc they create from time to time.

    A ‘hard landing’ for Godwin. And I am not talking economics here. LOL.

  327. I think Rudd is stupid for accepting a ute from a car dealer in the first place.

    This entirely capable of being portrayed as equivalent to a financial reward.

    You know something funny? I agree with you one hundred percent. Accepting a gift of that magnitude is stupid politically as it becomes a real easy target for personal, innuendo-based attacks such as what Malcolm started with earlier this month.

    I don’t particularly find the acceptance immoral or unethical given there is a lack of evidence showing it unduly influenced Rudd on the behalf of the benefactor and the fact it was declared.

    But given the way our political body works (via tabloid media and the joke we call “Question Time”), accepting the gift was bound to be thrown against Rudd by the Opposition. It was a politically dumb thing to do and I do think it’ll hurt Kevin Rudd.

  328. B.Tolputt, on June 21st, 2009 at 10:08 pm

    Cool, there goes all grass-root political campaigns and contributory citizen-participation in preference for a self-resourcing plutocracy. No accepting gifts from the hoi polloi, oi, because the silvertails will make an issue of it. Meanwhile, the OzCar legislation goes to the Senate next week, and it’s only by accident that the Opposition has been digging for dirt in the back of the ute for a fortnight, and lo they’ve managed to discover an almost link between a car and Ozcar. 😉

  329. Nature, get stuffed. I advanced a speculative theory in the context of an ongoing broad discussion about something none of us has specific knowledge of apart from what we have learned from journos. The evidence in this context is everything that’s been written in this blog. Hell I even differentiated between what I “thought” and what has been “evidenced”.

    Now my understanding of the convention of Ministerial Responsibility is that (partly) if a Minister misleads Parliament, he must resign. The evidence, to the extent that it is available to us, suggests that Swan misled Parliament. Now unless you have an alternative definition of “Ministerial Responsibility”, please inform us, otherwise take your condescending “Government 101” shit and shove it where Nature would never intend.

    And if you have something to say about Howard and the Packers, let it loose. I’d like to know about Brumby and the Packers myself.

    You know when the lefties are stuffed for an argument when all they have is some vague innuendo from a bygone era “Yeah but what about Howard?” Howard is gone. None of your accusations of dishonesty stuck. Rudd is PM.

  330. Calling the police is an interesting tactic.

    Is anyone suggesting criminality?

    Political evidence is more likely to be based on the civil “balance of probability” rather thanteh criminal standard – “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    Any specific rational for them being called, other than issuing a predictable statement at the end that there is “no evidence of breach …” or something similar.

  331. Tom of Melbourne, on June 21st, 2009 at 9:55 pm Said:

    I think Rudd is stupid for accepting a ute from a car dealer in the first place

    I agree. But in Quinceland, having a broken-down, rusty ute is evidence that you are of the people. And no I won’t document the number of politicians who have employed the same device, except to say that one ‘prominent’ member (in the sense he went to the slammer for paedophilia) drove a Jag but always used the ute in the electorate while living in a mansion on the Gold Coast.

    This entirely capable of being portrayed as equivalent to a financial reward.

    Tom he did declare this ‘donation’ and did so since its inception. On a more serious note, Perhaps these declarations of assistance ought to include endorsements from media moguls or would that be too close to full disclosure? A ute versus the support endorsement of the OO, for example Now that’s a debate I would like to see? The conflicts of interest abound, do they not?

    Finally:

    this controversy will damage him. I think he will look more and more like “just another politician”.

    Yes. But that what this whole campaign has been about.

  332. Back on the Blackberry again. I would not like it if Showpony took a photograph of me and posted it in the newspapers. Its an invasion of privacy. As for the rusty ute- this is proof that Rudd does not believe in global warming. its do as I say not do as I do.

  333. N5, Sure, but I’ve had a quick look through the posts here much of the discussion has been about the behaviour of Turnbull. I still can’t understand the focus on this.

    It is an obvious diversionary tactic. I think it misses the mark by about 180 degrees.

    Rudd is PM. Fine he has declared a gift that is worth about $1000+ a month. Small change possibly, but stupid politics. Rudd is in deep trouble if there has been any specific contact between his office and treasury.

    The bigger “bribes” and promises are always less direct, and often the benefits aren’t available until the political career is over.

    Rudd has plenty of explaining to do.

  334. James of North Melbourne, on June 21st, 2009 at 10:20 pm Said:

    Nature, get stuffed.

    James, I didn’t know you cared. LOL.

    And then you demonstrate your ignorance:

    I advanced a speculative theory

    No James, ‘theory’ just doesn’t wash. What you advanced was pure speculation. In scientific terms, at least, ‘theory’ must go beyond ‘speculation’ As for

    your condescending “Government 101″

    I know James, tis just another of your theories.

  335. Expanded sample, James: Car dealer ‘got no special treatment’

    And the misleading-ness only works if Swan had said “no” where he said “yes” and with the ‘special-ness’; arguably, the more the story develops, the more it looks like he was scrupulously honest in context at best, and at worst can argue he was.

  336. Nature, have a look at definition No. 2.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

    Then please tell me all about Ministerial Responsibility and why it doesn’t apply in this case. You’ve said I don’t understand it, well grow some balls and say why. Where have I got it wrong?

  337. Legion, I can only quote Michelle Grattan, an ALP supporter by any definition, who said

    “But the emails tabled at the Senate hearing show everyone concerned with the Grant case behaving as though they thought it was to be handled with particular diligence.

    There may have been nothing improper, but Grant travelled through the process gold class (although he has not received anything in the end).”

    I linked the article earlier.

  338. Settle down James – I believe you’re using the word “theory” in the non-technical sense, whereas N5 is using it in the technical sense – let’s not get bogged down in semantics please!
    From your link:

    Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

    So in the non-technical sense, what you propose could be referred to as a theory, in a technical sense, it’s an hypothesis…

  339. Just to put in my two-cents, I think James did not mislead the blogocrats, and therefore does not have to resign his cabinet position.

  340. James of North Melbourne, on June 21st, 2009 at 10:51 pm

    So, public servants did their job and did it well? And he misled Parliament when he said that’s what was being done? That’s the big scandal being pinned on Swan? 😉

  341. Tom of Melbourne, on June 21st, 2009 at 10:32 pm Said:

    Fine he has declared a gift that is worth about $1000+ a month. Small change possibly, but stupid politics

    Yes I agree with the ‘stupid politics’ but only evident in hindsight. FFS, who would have thought a rusty ute would be seen as a basis for a corruption allegation.

    Rudd is in deep trouble if there has been any specific contact between his office and treasury.

    Bullshit. Rudd like any PM has any number of ‘roles’ and accordingly there are any number of ‘staffers’ appointed to assist. Some help with his role as PM, some help with his role as a member of Cabinet, some help with his role as (the list is almost endless) but specifically some help with his role of ‘Local Member’.

    One of his constituents is a John Grant and it’s Rudd’s job as the local member to assist John Grant in his dealings with government. (If my local member didn’t assist me, then I would be dismayed, to put it mildly).

    In this instance Grant didn’t go to his local member but to Ripoli (the member where his business is) who made representations on his behalf. What’s wrong with that and more importantly, Grant got absolutely nothing out of the whole exercise.

    Now to that real question re the Angels and ..

  342. And one more thing Tom before I respond to James:

    The bigger “bribes” and promises are always less direct, and often the benefits aren’t available until the political career is over.

    Indeed. I can see it now, Rudd selling rusty utes to the good Burghers of Ipswich as his reward for not getting John Grant special favours, which he didn’t need. LOL.

    Now about those angels.

  343. It’s ok, Bacchus, I just hate a smart arse. We were having a pretty informal discussion and I advanced what I called a theory, much earlier today. Adrian called for evidence and I said I had none, it was just a speculative theory. Then Smartarse5 tries to pull the scientific definition of theory in some feeble attempt to belittle me, whilst also stating that I don’t understand the concepts that I am discussing. We are not discussing science. What I am saying is that if Nature5 wants to argue with the big boys, then he’d better come prepared with something of substance. He hasn’t advanced his superior definition of Ministerial Responsibility, whilst telling me I don’t understand it, and he doesn’t obviously understand that theory has more than just the scientific definition, the one he no doubt looked up when he was trying to sound knowledgable on Climate Change, another subject about which he appears to actually know SFA yet speaks as if he’s a climate scientist. In short, be sure of your own ground before mocking the opinions of others.

  344. I’m not biting Legion, you’re just trying to mindfuck me.

    The wife is ordering me to bed, so off I will go. I’ll read with interest and amusement Nature’s next attempt in the morning.

  345. Nature 5, on June 21st, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    I think Tom means Crystal Bowls and the speaking circuit, where the sky is the limit when the Arcane Foundation or the Bueno Ventures Club is paying for dinner, an hour or two of shared quality time, and a few ‘motivational words of wisdom’. Then there’s all the rest of the sinecures, like ‘board’ and ‘consultancy’ retainers. 😉

  346. James of North Melbourne, on June 21st, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    G’night, James.

  347. Night joni-boy.

  348. James of North Melbourne, on June 21st, 2009 at 10:43 pm Said:

    James, I won’t pursue the ‘theory’ angle because bacchus has linked accordingly. But I will just add that simply engaging in wild speculation prostitutes the concept of ‘hypothesis’.

    Then we have:

    Then please tell me all about Ministerial Responsibility and why it doesn’t apply in this case.

    James, Ministerial Responsibility should apply in every case (forget Howard and Downer at al) but you are asserting ‘ministerial irresponsibility’, and therefore the the onus of proof is on you not me. You have to ‘make’ the case.

    As for:

    You’ve said I don’t understand it, well grow some balls and say why

    I just did. Perhaps ‘Logic 101’ is also an option for next Semester. What an exciting future you have as the scales drop from your eyes. But only if you study hard.

  349. James of North Melbourne, on June 21st, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    Just something else to consider (other than a likeness of/for one of Gordon Ramsay’s fantasy women with multiple sets of knockers)…sometimes some interesting and potentially very useful ideas get lost in the close-focus of the two-party, death-cage melee:

    Greens call on Government to develop corruption commission

    The Greens today called on the Rudd Government to begin establishing a corruption body along the lines of the similar bodies operating at state level around Australia.

    “Such a commission would not only investigate claims of corruption but would be best placed to defend the innocent, at arms length from politics,” Australian Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown said.

    “Ultimately, such a commission would help defend politicians and the political profession.

    “A commission would sort out the serious from the trivial and would help defend politicians and public officials from unwarranted attack.”

    The Federal Government should look at how such bodies work in states where they have been established and develop a best practice model for Australia, taking into account the special features of national governance.

    “Such a body should of course operate without trammelling the ability of parliamentary committees to function as they are.”

  350. Tony, on June 21st, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    Interesting. I just ran a search over at News for Steve Lewis, and his ‘authorship’ for the past week is diverting to ‘Glenn Milne’ as output, and the original story containing the quoted email appears to have been ‘revised’ to no longer include that quote. I’m sure those internal ‘glitches’ in how News arranges its product, including online search and text retrieval functions, mean little.

  351. Al, on June 21st, 2009 at 9:56 pm Said:

    From checking the facts that are available to the general public at this stage, it does appear as though Wayne Swan may have misled parliament.

    “It is claimed that Godwin Grech has said that he may have seen an email from Rudd’s office asking for assistance for John Grant. If there was such an email, Rudd has also misled parliament.

    As far as I’m aware, Malcolm Turnbull has done nothing wrong, so calls that he may have to resign are simply absurd. The email, as far as any of us are aware, have nothing to do with Mr Turnbull. Rudd’s ultimatum is outrageous and the media are treating him very favourably in all this.”

    It is claimed that Godwin Grech may have seen a flying saucer which landed in his backyard and little green beings issued forth and demanded to see his leader. See, someone can claim any old thing, but it’s a lot harder to stump up proof.

    The email doesn’t exist; it’s a product of Steve Lewis and Malvolio’s fevered minds. Maybe they’ve decided to write a political non-thriller.

    Now Rudd’s called in the dogs and suddenly the email has to be labelled a diversion and Malvolio needs to alter the focus of his rantings and pretend he never said a word about it. Trouble is there’s too much evidence to the contrary everywhere.

    This should suggest to even the most logically challenged that the entire email thing has been a beat-up from start to finish at Malvolio’s behest.

    And the question which should now be asked is whether Malvolio knew this all along and that the true purpose for the entire fiasco was character assassination of both Rudd and Swan. Which is backfiring spectacularly, apparently because now even the most compliant of the meeja is demanding something more than hot air and smoke and mirrors.

    If that’s the case, Turnbull has done a great deal wrong. If so, lawyers could be sharpening their quills and Malvolio could find his fortune being considerably reduced. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bloke.

  352. Legion, on June 22nd, 2009 at 1:02 am

    I should also note that the revised piece, other than losing the quote to the original email which was its centrepiece, now makes Senate goings on its apparent raison d’etre and makes reference to multiple emails. Rhetorical question warning: Seriously, do News think people can’t remember back three days, or what they read then, or deduce whose interests such Orwellian revisionisms would serve. This Winston Smith ain’t amused.

  353. And up pops Steve Lewis or someone writing under his by-line, again…the phantom email wasn’t really published by him on Friday morning in his blockbuster exclusive, and just magically appeared out of the Senate Estimates Committee hearing as a kind of alleged thing to be held out at arm’s length and something he knows nothing about really…phew…

    Mr Rudd emerged from church yesterday morning to demand that Mr Turnbull produce the alleged email – published in The Advertiser on Saturday – or resign.

    He claimed the Liberal leader had been “boasting” about having access to the email, allegedly written by the PM’s adviser Andrew Charlton to Mr Grech.

  354. And here Steve is again, giving a brief glimpse of how he almost came to be at the centre of the phantom email scandal…but no mention of the phantom email or basic authentication of it by him, just mention of his fantastic investigative journalism and pivotal role in sparking a ‘let’s you and him fight’ situation, which isn’t his style at all usually.

  355. Legion, on June 22nd, 2009 at 2:11 am

    Note to self: Don’t be fooled by Steve’s misdirection to Saturday’s The Advertiser, the original is over at Friday’s The Telegraph.

  356. Ignore note to self: Steve provides that reminder…

    Last Friday, on the day the story was published , Mr Grech – appearing distraught and extremely nervous – appeared before a special Senate hearing, to confirm key elements of these allegations.

    Subsidiary note to self and Steve: Problem is, though, that original Friday story has now been revised online so that it reads as if was written AFTER Friday BECAUSE it effectively was. And the version of events provided in The Advertiser and The Telegraph today STILL DON’T MATCH.

  357. Legion, the other thing they can’t control of course is that people will keep newspaper reports on this fiasco from its beginning and that blogs like this have also been commenting from day one. They can’t alter what’s out of their domain.

    I find it appalling but not surprising really, that the meeja is still so dishonest and has not accepted that the Rodent government no longer rules.

  358. Has anyone checked the ute in question to see if it is indeed rusty?
    Lets hope so, otherwise therein lies another case of misleading parliament.

  359. Irony, much: Private man Godwin Grech at centre of Utegate storm. Smithers, release the cadets to ensure he has none.

  360. Can’t overlook this sterling piece of logic from Glenn Milne, either: Rudd’s adviser ‘unable to sleep’

    Further doubt over Charlton’s depiction of Turnbull as a bully has been raised by an email sent on March 2, 2004, shortly after he won preselection for the Sydney seat of Wentworth.

    Good to know that there isn’t any kind of time paradox involved, Glenn.

  361. joni, on June 21st, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    joni you mentioned something in that post that this morning made news bulletins.

    It has been alleged that Malcolm has been “off the record” going on about an email and documentary evidence for several weeks.

    And haven’t things gotten worse for the opposition and especially Malcolm overnight.

    It now turns out that there were representations to and from Treasury for other car dealers who had absolutely no ties to Rudd or Swan. Out of a total of 21 emails on these other dealers, 17 were sent to Swan’s home contact. As far as can be ascertained Swan handled each and everyone of them the same and appropriately.

    Grech it appears may have gotten emails confused. Grech himself authored a portion of the emails on the car dealership administrations for assistance.

    Hockey has come out and stated that within 24 hours or maybe a little longer all will be revealed, and it will be damning for Rudd and Swan, but particularly Swan. He said that before the representations of other car dealerships being sent to Swan’s home contact were released.

    So I’m looking forward to the next 24 hours or so when Hockey will reveal the evidence that will damn Rudd and sack Swan.

    Everyone on the opposition side and their media mouth pieces are now running as fast as they can away from the original email claim that started all this, and which was Turnbull’s original claim for Rudd (not Swan) to be sacked immediately.

    The opposition are now focusing almost wholly on Swan in what appears to be a desperate ploy to get attention away from Turnbull, but with each passing moment is failing miserably.

    Methinks as it stands at the moment, and unless Hockey can pull a rabbit out of a hat, “watch this Rocky”, then Turnbull is history. Even if he doesn’t get stood down or stands down he will be tarnished and crippled as a leader of the opposition. Problem is Hockey on taking the froth at the mouth stance he currently is is no better, so his leadership aspirations are probably shot as well.

  362. Meanwhile and elsewhere, a relevant union (boo) official had this to say:

    Mr Grech’s anguished testimony prompted Commonwealth and Public Sector Union national secretary Stephen Jones to call on Public Service Commissioner Lynelle Briggs to “remind politicians” of the precarious position of public servants giving evidence in public inquiries.

    “Whenever public servants find themselves before Senate committees, the evidence they give and, indeed, their very appearance, is often used as a political football,” he said. “It is an invidious position for them to be in.”

    Mr Jones said he was baffled by the attention shown to the OzCar case, when entire sections of public service agencies existed to answer ministerial inquiries and respond to constituent representations. “Every day, this sort of thing happens, from MPs, ministers, shadow ministers. They all advocate on behalf of their constituents. The issue at the heart of this is absolutely routine. I find it extraordinary that, whatever side you take on it, it has gained the notoriety that it has.”

  363. johnd, on June 22nd, 2009 at 7:08 am

    They showed it on brekky news this morning minus the bill boards, and it’s an old bomb. I wouldn’t call it rusty as such but a little rust in places is visible.

  364. Mr Jones said he was baffled by the attention shown to the OzCar case, when entire sections of public service agencies existed to answer ministerial inquiries and respond to constituent representations. “Every day, this sort of thing happens, from MPs, ministers, shadow ministers. They all advocate on behalf of their constituents. The issue at the heart of this is absolutely routine. I find it extraordinary that, whatever side you take on it, it has gained the notoriety that it has.”

    Absolutely Legion, and that statement is where the opposition and their mouth pieces have gone wrong from day dot of their gaining opposition.

    Methinks they were so used to rorting and bending the system when in government, with their win at any costs mentality that is ingrained in the conservatives, they think everything must be rorted now. Their attacks have almost wholly been on routine matters and trivialities as though they believe that surely government can never do anything strait down the line.

  365. “Methinks they were so used to rorting and bending the system when in government, with their win at any costs mentality that is ingrained in the conservatives, they think everything must be rorted now.”

    Typical left wing dingbat comment!

    No better than the right wing dingbat comments at Bolt’s.

    Don’t need blinkers for blind hatred!

  366. Big difference scaper, but says something that you can’t see it.

    Also there is no such thing as a left wing dingbat, they are referred to as moonbats.

  367. Actually, while aimed at the conservatives, it is a well-known phenomena that people that lie, cheat, steal, etc are prone to thinking that nigh on everyone else does the same; whereas honest people tend to think others are honest until proven otherwise.

    That this applies only to the conservatives is obviously incorrect. Almost everyone in voting in the house/senate parliament house is either a career politician (i.e. crook) or still wet behind the ears (i.e. too new to see the pitfalls).

    The Liberals are simply taking aim at individuals (rather than policy) because they think they can pull down the government minister-by-minister due to Labor having been out of power for so long (and hence a little naive when it comes to what can be spun as corruption). Their earlier “victory” with Fitzgibbon probably has alot to do with their fervor on this particular case earlier this week and their mistake with the email is going to have them foaming to bring down Swan (in an attempt to divert attention and still get the “win”).

  368. To me, one that tars a whole ideology if you want to call it that, because of the actions of a few with the same brush is akin to one that tars a whole race because of the actions of some.

    Prejudicial hatred!

  369. That would obviously depend on the ideology in question. After all, I feel safe tarring all Klu Klux Klan with the same brush *shrug*

    In this case though, I would have to side with Mobius Ecko/Adrian. It’s not like the elected representatives in the Liberal Party are somehow separate from those of the previous government. For the most part, they are the same people with a few missing (having lost their seats to the Greens & Labor). In other words, in the quote you used – he is simply tarring the Coalition with “past behaviour”.

  370. Methinks they were so used to rorting and bending the system when in government, with their win at any costs mentality that is ingrained in the conservatives, they think everything must be rorted now.

    Adrian and Ben,

    That’s a fairly broad brush-stroke with which you tar conservatives. I suppose it’s a case of put up or shut up, then. Let’s start with all the proven cases of “rorting and bending the system when in government” you mention. If such things were as rife as you say then they will be easy to list. (By the way, don’t bother with cases such as AWB, where the left charged impropriety but none was proven.)

  371. Klu Klux Klan???

    For all this alleged ‘bending and rorting’ by the opposition there seems to be no charges or prosecution but that does not matter as blind hatred does not need to be evidence based.

  372. As I said, I did not tar all “conservatives” with that, I only agreed that the Liberal Party of today is mostly the same as it was two years ago. There is but a handful of different faces and a few faces missing who were once there.

    Also, I find it amusing that we cannot use the AWB scandal. Sure no guilt was proven, but that was because the government was not investigated – it was outside the parameters of the investigation. There are others that can be used if needed, like the National Textiles deal that prevented an inquiry into Stan Howard (the ex-Prime Minister’s brother).

  373. Possum has a good opposition timeline on this (ignore the Milne bit) which indicates Turnbull as far back as the 4th was attempting to trap Rudd into a denial as he had documentary evidence (known or unknown fake). This ties in with Turnbull saying “off the record” for several weeks now he had documentary evidence.

    The question now becomes not of the government handling of OzCar, but what is the source of Malcolm’s documentary evidence he has been going on about for a while, and just where they hell is it.

  374. As a typical left wing dingbat (sorry, adrian, moonbat is an American term) – I’m beginning to feel sorry for my right wing counterparts …

    Turnbull is in a lot of trouble – not necessarily with Parliament but with those pesky swinging voters …

    The more I read the more I’m convinced we are about to see one (or more) self inflicted wounds on the Opposition benches this week …
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    … and, scaper, if you want to appear “independent” and “central” then you need to attack both sides of politics (posters) equally… not just the left … some people don’t remember the days at Blogocracy … when you were a left wing dingbat …

    … I bitch about Rudd & Co but I’m still a firm believer in what the ALP stands for … and I remember why we campaigned to get rid of John Howard & The Private School Bullies – who are obviously still running their side of the “show” …

  375. B Tolputt,

    National Textiles is an interesting case. You can direct me to proof of any impropriety (a charge which John Howard strenuously denied, by the way)?

    (As an aside, it is worth pointing out that the whole National Textiles story was pushed by the Murdoch press, who Mr Howard also accused of running a concerted campaign against the then-government over the GST. Bias, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder.)

  376. Wasn’t Feilding disgraceful on ABC 2 today. He summed his position up with a statement like “Malcolm” has every right to ask the questions, it’s how they are answered. This gives weight to the fact that he is a quasi Liberal. Steve, these are not questions you dope, they are serious allegations. I would suggest that Turdballs position as opposition leader is very shaky, after the Federal Police have exonerated Rudd. Turdballs position has changed so much, that by his actions it would appear he has the problem. Swan and Rudd have not changed their positions. Lets look at Turdballs actions attacking a staffer, firing at Rudd, racing away from his allegation, and then firing at Swan. The idiot Hoss Hockey has thrown his credibility into the ring with the incrediblly stupid satement this morning “its only a matter of time before they (Swan and Rudd we presume) trip up. The fact Hoss is that your mob have already made an allegation about the here and now…now back it up. Your credibility is shot as well.

  377. Oh c’mon scaper, what about the fake leaflets doled out at the last election, the how to vote cards, Children Overboard where not one single person was held to account, same as AWB, where even those found guilty walked away with large payouts, Haneef where PS were told they were not to attend Senate Estimates, as were some in the AWB enquiry, NTER to win votes, and the rest of the rolling damage control that was their MO.

    The previous government had lots of “I wasn’t told” moments, blaming staff, yet not a single staffer was every sacked or admonished. Some went onto being promoted for their efforts of stuffing up. Our public service was never more politicised than under the previous government.

    The previous government tied down government tighter than a drum, spending large amounts of money to keep the lid on their goings on, all under the veil of heavy punitive action including using anti-terrorist legislation.

    We never had a more secretive and less transparent government than the previous one, so just what did they have to hide and what did they hide?

    Telling that you wish to defend the previous government because nothing “official” was found, but have had no hesitation condemning this one on hearsay and innuendo.

  378. he [Fielding] is a quasi Liberal

    An extreme conservative, obviously he favours the Liberal. Former Liberal, Bob Day (millionaire “employer” and IR radical) now stands under Fielding’s banner.

  379. the previous government because nothing “official” was found

    Thank you, and isn’t that the point? Allegations and accusations are just that. Without “official” confirmation they’re nothing more than red-herrings, brought up by you and others as ‘proof’ of systemic corruption of past conservative governments.

  380. Adrian, unlike you I have not condemned any side on this thread as there is an investigation in place and all the facts have not come to light to form an opinion.

    I have produced links and put questions to the people here in an attempt to broaden the discussion to no avail.

    The speculation I have seen here has a ‘lynch mob’
    feel about it, even certain people that I thought were free thinking have fell into this trap!

  381. Is the lynch mob mentality from both sides here scaper?

    And wouldn’t you say this lynch mob mentality has come about by the hysterical calls by the opposition, but Malcolm and Hockey in particular, for our PM to immediately stand down apparently based on an email they never saw?

    It is understandable that people get upset when the leader of their democratic country is told to quit because of an apparent grave impropriety that turns out to be vapour.

  382. I think we can all agree that someone is going down for the current issue (i.e. the one involving Rudd &/or Swan). Either there is going to be documentation regarding Rudd’s involvement (& Rudd is gone) or there isn’t (& Malcolm is damaged beyond repair).

    As much as news.com.au can go back 1984-style to play with their stories, Malcolm cannot take back his calls for Rudd to quit and his “advice” to a member of Rudd’s staff stating there was documentation the guy was “lying to protect his boss”. Both Malcolm & Rudd have gone “all in”, except Malcolm is trying to pull out since realising his weakness in focusing on said email.

  383. FEDERAL Treasurer Wayne Swan is refusing to make public emails and correspondence backing up claims the Government did not provide favoured treatment to a Brisbane car dealer.

    The material was “commercial in confidence” but would be provided to an inquiry by the Commonwealth auditor-general, he said.
    ——————————————————————-
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25669666-12377,00.html

    But the Treasurer expects Turnbull to “put up or shut up” in Parliament today.

    I suppose the usual suspects don’t see the hypocrisy in that?

  384. There is no hypocrisy here, and I think it is telling that you claim there is. The text of the email Turnbull claimed proved Rudd’s guilt is well known and (more importantly) contains no details about the financial status of the dealership in question. Not to mention that this was supposedly a “leaked email” (i.e. assuming the email existed, the person that read out the details obviously was ignoring “in confidence” agreements that may have been made).

    It is nigh on a certainty that in Swan’s emails, there is some details that could be used by competitors of the dealerships in question. This is the reason for “commercial in confidence” communications. Otherwise there would be no way of talking to the government about money matters without the rest of the world knowing.

    I don’t know about your experience, but it is pretty damn standard in mine that ‘commercial in confidence” communications are kept private (government contact or not). Without it, no large projects could be undertaken by the government at all!

    And I’d like to reiterate the fact that Malcolm showing the email would not expose any more that has already been in the papers. The only thing Turnbull could do would be to bolster the credibility of his argument. Swan showing the emails could serisouly damage the reputation &/or commercial success of dealerships communicated with.

  385. Tony, on June 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 am

    But Tony, nothing official was found in most cases because the setup of the investigating bodies was stacked to find nothing or to find for the way the previous government wanted it to, and that doesn’t even address the times the previous government flatly refused to have any sort of investigation at all.

    Good example of their stacking enquiries was their supposedly “fair” one into the viability of nuclear energy for Australia, and I’m for nuclear energy but even blind Freddy would not call that farce a fair enquiry.

    It is acknowledged (even by the Murdoch media at the time) that the previous government was the most secretive and least transparent government we’ve had. It bought in extremely harsh penalties for Public Servants talking out of turn or revealing what they didn’t want the public to know, along with generous public servant annual bonuses that were purely at the discretion of individual government ministers to give or deny each year.

    Or are you attempting to tell us because nothing “official” was found and noone was disciplined that there was no impropriety in the cases of Children Overboard, AWB, Haneef etc?

  386. B.Tolputt, on June 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 am Said:

    we can all agree that someone is going down for the current issue

    Don’t think so, if you are suggesting that someone will lose their position as a direct result of this ‘beat-up’. On the other hand, Rudd will probably suffer most in the popularity stakes because he has ‘fat’ to lose while Turnbull is still bouncing along the bottom.

    But there is a new twist I heard on ABC radio this morning. Rudd should be condemned because he drives a ‘rusty’ ute which might not be road-worthy.

    And so it goes. Political ‘debate’? LOL.

  387. scaper, take note of what Ben says about commercial-in-confidence because here he is on the money. No business would come within a bull’s roar of government re tenders, for example, if the Government publicised business matters or even allowed access under FOI.

  388. Scraper, Swa hasn’t made a big issue of his emails, Turdball has. If you make such accusations you must eventually show some evidence. Swan doesn’t have to make the case for him. Besides, Commercial in confidence, means just that. Imagine the abuse of privacy issues under the guise of parlimentary privilege by the opposition and the opposition oracle “The Australian”. Swan has done the correct thing and will let the emails be examined by the Auditor and I would suspect the Federal Police. The difference between the 2 parties is that one operates with intergity and correct protocol, and doesn’t bark information sourced at the local pub to be the absolute truth.

  389. Ben too true.

    All our dealings with government are Commercial-in-Confidence and I have it as a header and footer on every document I produce for our contracts with government (Defence).

    If our company knew that was being made public for competitors to see then we would immediately stop dealing with government, as would just about every other contractor except the shonky ones.

    Having said that there is no doubt that CinC has been used as an excuse by governments to hide damaging correspondence. The enquiry and AG will determine if this is the case here.

  390. scaper …

    There is no hypocrisy in the position that the Treasurer is taking. Turnbull has bneen asked to put up the email that the text of which has been ‘reproduced’ in papers on the weekend. The faxes and emails the Treasurer is talking about haven’t been made public and may contain details about the financial situation of certain businesses. If you ran one of those businesses would you like your precarious financial position being publically aired for political purposes – I think not.

    The info is provided to the AG and probably the fed police as well. I suspect that edited copies (ie CIC mateial removed) willbe released if it is cleared by the companies in question.

  391. Or are you attempting to tell us because nothing “official” was found and noone was disciplined that there was no impropriety in the cases of Children Overboard, AWB, Haneef etc?

    No, that is not Tony’s style. His is a right-leaning Socrates method of asking pointed questions about statements that disagree with his position whilst leaving those that agree.

    I’ll admit it’s effective for a while, but it loses credibility when blatant falsehoods are left alone so long as they don’t clash with Tony’s views. That is why I don’t bother debating Tony much, as he tends to ignore when he has had his line of questioning debunked by simply moving to another one.

    That said, I continue to read his posts because the “lefties” on this board need to be questioned too. I just don’t bother debating him because there is no end to the questions nor acknowledgement of points proven. *shrug*

    No offence intended, Tony. Just an observation.

  392. Adrian,

    Let’s assume Mr Rudd and Mr Swan aren’t officially found to have exerted improper or undue influence in the ute-gate affair, and Mr Swan hasn’t ‘technically’ misled parliament, and then I bring it up a year or two down the track as proof that Rudd and Swan used their influence to help-out mates. That’s what you are doing right now.

  393. Dave , my point is if Turnbull has any evidence then it should be handed over to the authorities, not tender it to Parliament!

    Am I mistaken?

    If I’m not then surely the PM and Treasurer knew the due process before their demands yesterday on Turnbull.

  394. Tony,

    The problem with your argument is that it assumes that there was special treatment for Grant that other dealers weren’t getting. The fact that Grant was helped by Treasury does not imply undue influence unless there was also evidence that other jobs got put aside to do this. Even with Grech’s testimony and accepting that the email was true, there is ZERO evidence of any undue influence.

    The charge is solely about misleading parliament and that depends on whether the email is real or not. Whatever accusations you make in the future about Rudd looking back at this issue should only relate to questions about misleading parliament.

  395. scaper …

    The argument by Rudd that he should produce the docs in parliament is a try on. Thing is, Turnbull was the first to call for this sort of stuff and given Turnbull’s allegations have effectively been that Rudd and Charton are lying, I think he’s entirtled to ask for an apology or some proof of the allegation.

    Don’t forget, we are talking about an attempt to paint the Prime Minister of our country as a liar – that to me is a pretty serious allegation (as it was when made against Howard) and Turnbull should be preaped to do what any good barrister does and support this with evidence. Don’t forget Turnbull was the one who on Friday and Staurday was saying that the evidence put it beyond doubt that Rudd had mislead parliament. Well right now, I don’t see anything but doubt.

  396. I would state you are mistaken, scaper.

    Turnbull doesn’t necessarily have to present the email to Parliament. He just needs to produce it. He can give it to the authorities in question if he prefers, but he needs to backup his accusations to remain a credible leader of the Opposition.

    The issue isn’t that he hasn’t presented the email to Rudd/Swan – it’s that he hasn’t presented any proof of the email. The best he has got is the memory of a public servant (who claims he may not be correct in his recollection) that is contradicted by the records of email correspondence kept in accordance to law.

    If Malcolm has proof of the email, he could simply give it to the AFP and state that he has done so in parliament. That would be enough to shut down Rudd & Swan’s calls for him to “put up or shut up”.

  397. Tony, on June 22nd, 2009 at 10:50 am

    No Tony, that would depend entirely on the nature of the enquiry. If the grounds and makeup are set by the government I would be doing exactly as you state I have for the previous government.

    If on the other hand the investigation is mostly reported as being open and transparent taking into account CinC matters, then if anyone bought up the matter in 12 months I would state that at the time the enquiry or investigation was deemed fair.

    That could not be said for most of the previous government’s enquiries and investigations as they were lambasted and often criticised at the time for their unfairness and non-transparency, let alone the times they blankly refused to allow any investigation or enquiries at all on matters that deserved some form of independent explanation.

  398. B.Tolputt,

    If Malcolm has proof of the email, he could simply give it to the AFP and state that he has done so in parliament. That would be enough to shut down Rudd & Swan’s calls for him to “put up or shut up”.

    He can’t do that though because he has already publically stated that he has never seen it. It would hurt him too much. I suspect the public care about being lied to even more than they care about misleading parliament.

    I note that Eric Abetz is hiding behind the AFP inquiry regarding what he read on Friday. Funny, they didn’t care much about investigations by AFP when that refugee boat caught fire earlier in the year.

    joni: I hope I edited this correctly, D55.

  399. That could not be said for most of the previous government’s enquiries and investigations as they were lambasted and often criticised at the time for their unfairness and non-transparency

    Lambasted? By who? Let me guess: The opposition? Teh ‘Left’? You?

    Adrian, just because some people won’t let go and accept the umpires decision, and then make the extraordinary leap of logic that any enquiry must therefore have been unfair, doesn’t make it true.

  400. scaper, I agree with, BT, Turncoat’s email is not CinC its government correspondence …

    John Grant’s communication is a legally protected document (as are most business communications) …

    Just being a free thinker 😉

  401. He can’t do that though because he has already publicly stated that he has never seen it. It would hurt him too much. I suspect the public care about being lied to even more than they care about misleading parliament.

    Possibly. Though what this shows is that Turnbull is willing to call Rudd (& his staff) a liar without having seen proof of such. He has dug his own hole there – he is either a liar with an email or a baseless accuser of the Prime Minister & his office.

    Which keeps bringing me back to who set Turnbull up. I may not think he is the best leader for our government, but I didn’t (& don’t) think he is dumb enough to do what he has done without someone / something ready to back him up. I sure wouldn’t put my career/reputation on the line based on someone reading an email over the phone!

  402. As Possum demonstrates, this ‘plot’ has been in the making for some time, certainly beofre Tip announced his departure. It was hatched when things were desperate – as they are now but for entirely different reasons.

  403. B.Tolputt

    Which keeps bringing me back to who set Turnbull up

    WARNING: Wild unsubstantiated speculation
    Maybe it was the Nats in Qld who were disenchanted by the LNP merger. The Nats have been pretty quiet on this whole thing since it started.

  404. Tony & Adrian

    Haneef was a classic “cover up” bungle – luckily it was so close to the lost election that it was shown up for what it was, a bloody witch hunt, practice for the present incompetent incumbents on the cross benches! Most of the Blogocrats got that one right, too!

    Question: How do I watch Question Time?

    I only have free to air TV and this computer (pod/vidcasts?) but I reckon today will be a hum dinger!

  405. I thought Turnbull’s ‘explain or resign’ call on late Friday was in response to Grech’s evidence in the Senate?

    Again, I say that if Turnbull has any evidence to offer then it should be given to the investigative authorities, not produced in Parliament.

  406. Adrian, just because some people won’t let go and accept the umpires decision, and then make the extraordinary leap of logic that any enquiry must therefore have been unfair, doesn’t make it true.

    Please Tony don’t insult our intelligence and try to tell us the enquiry into AWB, Children OB etc. were fair and open enquiries, let alone the times the previous government refused point blank to allow investigations at all.

    It is not the current government setting the ground rules and scope for this investigation, they have rightly handed it over to the AFP. The AG enquiry I will be suspect of if it doesn’t make public (within commercial restrictions) all its deliberations and reasoning.

    Are you trying to tell this blog that the AWB enquiry wasn’t in anyway stacked and limited in the scope of its investigations?

  407. Again, I say that if Turnbull has any evidence to offer then it should be given to the investigative authorities, not produced in Parliament.

    Again that is exactly what is being asked for and said here scaper, noone is disagreeing with that.

    All Turnbull has to say today is that he has the evidence and will hand it to the investigating authority when called to do so.

  408. Speaking of desperate ploys..anyone noticed that both the Alco-pops (with a probably backflip from Turnbull) and the ETS are also on the agenda. I keep thinking how amazing it is that the Libs are able to keep pulling out diversions (as per Miglo, the difference between salad and veg) just when they might come under scrutiny for their policies, or lack thereof.

    The thing about the email/Turnbull is surely one would want to see it and to verify it’s authenticity before making accusations in Parliament.

  409. Dave55, on June 22nd, 2009 at 11:18 am Said:

    My thoughts yesterday, Dave

    TB Queensland, on June 21st, 2009 at 5:19 pm Said: … and what if Turncoat was actually set up to lose *his* job …

    At my age – (did I tell you its my birthday in 7 days time – expecting a special CD from, sreb, this year) – I’m prone to wild and unsubstantiated speculation, predicated by wild and unsubstantiated speculation by politicians … 😆

  410. “All Turnbull has to say today is that he has the evidence and will hand it to the investigating authority when called to do so.”

    That sounds reasonable to me.

    This thing has been brewing since the first week in May so it will be interesting to see both side’s tactics today in the sand pit?

    Turnbull has had seven weeks to plan this out and if he goes down he will be seen as the silliest person in the Lower House since Hanson!

    Not long to go now before the game begins.

  411. lol from PP:

    …it appears that Turnbull suffered from premature carjaculation.

    Now Turnbull has been caught out lying twice on the same matter:

    First this morning on being asked about the timing of the reading of the email he replied Senator Abetz was reading from the email at the Senate Estimates on Friday because it had been published in the Daily Telegraph. It actually wasn’t published in the Tele until Saturday.

    Then Abetz confirms a journalist suggested to him the existence of ‘communication’ and goes on to read from the email. Turnbull had stated that noone in the opposition had seen the email and Abetz had only read it from the Telegraph.

  412. Are you trying to tell this blog that the AWB enquiry wasn’t in anyway stacked and limited in the scope of its investigations?

    My contention is it was a fair enquiry, and you and others should accept its findings*. The “scope” of any enquiry must by definition be limited by its terms of reference (just like the AFP haven’t been asked to investigate Mr Swans emails – only the one Mr Turnbull has mentioned).

    *However, if you can prove that it was anything other than fair, I will happily issue a retraction.

  413. Hanson (#Mmm-bop#) performed in the Lower House!?!?

    I loved that song (and they worked with Matthew Sweet).

    😀

  414. Question: How do I watch Question Time?

    My wife watches it on the ABC.

    Again, I say that if Turnbull has any evidence to offer then it should be given to the investigative authorities, not produced in Parliament.

    Agreed. But produce it he must, otherwise his credibility is completely shot (and hence his position as Opposition Leader is untenable). Thing is, as has been mentioned previously by others, he admits he doesn’t have the evidence to hand over!
    Rock – Turnbull – Hard Place

  415. Adrian, I like premature adjudication…so apt for the Blogosphere!

  416. Question: How do I watch Question Time?

    You should be able to watch it here, TB (if it’s not on the ABC).

  417. I used “premature accusation” on Friday – so I hereby claim all royalities for subsequent variations. 😛

  418. http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/

    You can watch (or listen to) Parliament here.

  419. Thanks, Ben, couldn’t see it this morning, thought it was midday (my online TV Guide) its at 2:00 pm … duh!

    Heads WILL roll!

    I’m more than convinced after just watching images – on Channel 7 news – that the Opposition is more worried than the Government (remember I’m a big fan of Lie To Me – NVC tell you far more than words!)

  420. Thanks all will watch on ABC!

  421. Mobius..therefore Turnbull went to parliament and to the media to make accusations against the PM based on something that had been read to him by a journalist.

    I hope that T’bull never becomes PM because we could end up in a war based on hearsay about for example, the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

  422. I hope that T’bull never becomes PM because we could end up in a war based on hearsay about for example, the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

    Yeah, good thing that never happened! 😛

  423. Tony, on June 22nd, 2009 at 11:31 am

    You are trying to insult our intelligence by saying it was a fair enquiry.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1558308.htm

    This is what happened whenever any possible criminal allegations were made in the enquiry:

    AWB’s lawyer, James Judd, QC, claimed the examination was outside the commission’s terms of reference.

    The whole thing was severely hamstrung by very narrow terms of reference deliberately set up by the government.

    And you are trying to tell us it was a fair enquiry, and out of it not one person was punished in any meaningful way with the board walking away from AWB with all their payouts and bonuses intact, and noone in government investigated in a way that could be called comprehensive.

  424. What was the email Erica Betz was apparently reading from? Let’s see it.

  425. You are trying to insult our intelligence by saying it was a fair enquiry.

    Not at all Adrian. I just think that when you make such serious allegations, you should be able to back them up with facts, not opinion.

  426. If Turdball is this shonky in Opposition, let us hope he never gets his egomaniacal, bullying ex-merchant banker’s backside into the PM’s chair.

  427. Tony,

    The “scope” of any enquiry must by definition be limited by its terms of reference (just like the AFP haven’t been asked to investigate Mr Swans emails – only the one Mr Turnbull has mentioned).

    I don’t understand there to be any allegation of ilegality on the part of Swan’s emails or faxes. The AFP are looking at the possible offence of impersonating a public servant (or something similar).

    The Auditor General’s original brief was limited but it has has since been expanded to cover Swan’s dealings with Treasury as well given the change in trhust by the Opposition.

    Re AWB, I agree that there wasn’t an findings of illegality against the Howard Government but the findings clearly indicated that there was a grose failuire of oversight by the very mininsters responsible for AWB’s trade dealings with Iraq. As you say though, there was no proof but plenty of inferences that weren’t real good. I don’t think the Ministers dealing with AWB came out of the inquiry loking all that competent.

  428. Albanese up and in attack mode…Abbott facing him off on the other side.

  429. There’s the problem Dave. Some of the mud’s going to stick, in any of these affairs. Interestingly, up until last night, all the polls had the public believing Mr Turnbull over Mr Rudd – and Rudd may well be the one telling the truth.

    In Adrian’s mind, an inquiry (AWB) in which government ministers were exonerated of any wrongdoing is proof that the enquiry was unfair and of “conservatives rorting and bending the system when in government”.

  430. Turnbull up to call Swan.

  431. Turnbull now asking “When did you stop beating your wife?” questions…

  432. Swan accused of talking to Grant!

  433. Turnbull talking speculation without evidence thus far.

  434. Hmm . . .ABC Teev breaking news talking about finding the e-mail on Gretch’s Home computer. Claim that e-mail is a fake. May be a premature report or even just wrong.

    Wait and see if its followed up on other news.

    Curiouser and curiouser.

  435. brian – if the email turns out to be true and real, then Gillard will be PM by the end of the day.

  436. Happy with the Speaker of the House today – making sure that, even though Malcolm is talking speculation, he is not drowned out by jeers from Labor.

  437. Via Sky: Federal Police have undertaken a search of Grech’s home.

  438. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/22/2604632.htm?section=justin

    AFP cars are at Mr Grech’s house in southern Canberra and IT specialists are investigating an email sent from Treasury to his home account.

    The ABC’s political editor Chris Uhlmann says it appears that the email in question has been found in Treasury’s system by police and that it is fraudulent.

    The police are now interviewing Mr Grech about the email, which appears to have been concocted inside the Treasury Department.

  439. Ben..we do tend to take Harry Jenkins for granted (and what a wonderful surname) after the blankety-blank Speakers under Howard. No complaints, or at least nothing that makes the papers re his performance.

  440. Current info is that the email is fraudulent. Not official yet though… following this snippet as I think this will lead to the person setting up Malcolm.

  441. Major change in focus in Parliament today. It’s all about the Treasurer, never was anything but… Just ask Malcolm!

  442. I bet there are some very scared people in the ACT at the moment….

  443. PM calling for censure on Turnbull.

  444. OK, Malcolm is going off subject to smear all ALP… He is so screwed when this blows up.

  445. PM focusing on email, no mention of Grech’s evidence.

  446. Ben..Mal looks to be a worried man. Rudd: The member for Wentworth has disqualified himself..due to quoting a false email.

  447. Tony,

    Serious questions. As a Lib supporter, are you happy with how Turnbull is ‘prosecuting’ this issue? Do you even see the original issue (ie, Rudd/ Swan helping their mate) as an issue at all?

  448. Thanks for these live updates folks..

    🙂

    It’s good to “hear” what’s going on while I’m stuck here at work..

  449. Rudd is reading out the alleged email. Is this finance available….?

    This is where I had problems, this is what happens all of the time. You get queries about whether X or Y might be available. And then you answer, Will follow it up.

  450. scaper …
    Grech’s testimony is sketchy at best. Grech had the impression that Grant was a special case but even his evidence didn’t suggest that he’d treated him specially.

  451. Mods,

    Any chance of a new thread for this? This one is too long now.

  452. Same here reb – it is edge-of-the-seat stuff.

  453. Rudd hammering Turnbull on his comment that Abetz was just quoting the paper when the papers didn’t publish it until Saturday.

    Rudd and Swan (this morning on Radio) are very confident they have done anything wrong.

  454. Well, Grech’s evidence is looking pretty damn shaky at the moment. Given the email appears to have come from within Treasury (not the Prime Minister’s office). Either someone forged it back in February or someone has done it since…. It should be interesting finding out which it is.

    Rudd is now blasting Malcolm’s claim the email was published in papers before it being read out in Senate.

  455. Now the PM is giving it to the Telegraph over publishing the alleged email.

  456. Dave,

    I said earlier on this thread that if no email exists – and at this stage, it’s looking like a forgery at best – he should resign on the grounds of sheer incompetence. (What kind of a barrister goes in so hard based on a piece of evidence he hasn’t even bothered to verify for authenticity?)

  457. Yeah, I think Rudd believe’s he is on a winner here… The AFP’s investigation should either prove him out or demolish him completely… waiting with eagerness

  458. The Australian has already run that Grech although honest and loyal is not a well man:

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25669047-2702,00.html

    THE Treasury official at the centre of the car-dealer affair, Godwin Grech, is a seriously ill man who keeps a packed bag by the door of his home in case he needs to be rushed to hospital.

  459. Now the PM is bringing in the so called threat by Turnbull…integrity?

    There is no such thing in politics.

  460. Caney – I’ll sort that in a sec…

  461. Tony,

    I guess I’m more interested in whether you think the whole ute thing was worth pushing in the first place (before Rudd had even gone on the record). I agree about the incompetence thing – Turnbull is toast.

  462. I just hope that the public service is looking after Grech. In the UK – the scientist (David Kelly?) at the centre of the “sexed up” Iraq dossier scandal ended up committing suicide. I just hope he is being looked after in all of this – as it seems it is not his fault.

  463. No, I don’t believe there is but the politicians need us to believe there is. Turnbull cannot survive as leader at the end of this unless the email is not faked…

    Rudd is currently calling direct bias/control of Telegraph journalists by the Liberal Party… and bringing up the issue that Turnbull looked for Charlton to give him his “advice”.

  464. joni – I’ve been thinking the same thing.

  465. The behavior in the sand pit is as always, pathetic!

    Katter and his bullwhip should be Speaker.

  466. Division required on whether Rudd can have an extension of time (to equal that of Turnbull). The Lib’s are mad.

    joni: closed this thread for comments, new thread put up now by reb

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: