Has Kevin Rudd misled parliament?

Despite Kevin Rudd announcing in parliament the three statements I have posted so repetitively from Hansard that he or his departments had no knowledge on the matter but finally had to give the information out under intense questioning from a Senate Committee ? Goodness me, you have to be illiterate to not understand this one. Lawyer or layman it matters not. Just because the trial by media has found Kevin Rudd not guilty does not mean the cadaver is dead on the table. A week is a long time in politics. Or so I am told.

It is also pleasant to read your rhetoric has toned (somewhat) down to the level of a dull roar when imbibing your view on this topic. Instead of tackling the man you have merely gone for a fair bump in play. An improvement duly noted from this corner.

Gamblor said:

If there was a case against Kevin Rudd misleading parliment you can bet Turnbull wouldn't have let up and we would still be hearing about it now.

Sorry but you don't have a leg to stand on here

Click to expand...

No need to be sorry Gamblor. I admire your candour. Yes I agree if Mr Turnbull could pin the tail on the donkey he would rightly do so. Unfortunately his current style of mismanagement on the affair has let him down. You would think as an ex Merchant Banker and a QC he would have checked his facts in regards to the "fake" email (thanks to the jouranlist Steve Lewis) before going in jackboots and all?

I notice that none of the media/press/AFP have requested Mr Lewis to divulge his information? It is being pointed back at Treasury level. Grech was silenced by his superiors. Why? Information was not forthcoming until a Senate Committee investigation. Why? Kevin told parliament one thing then backflipped and said it was Mr Swan who handled the matter. Almost Pontius Pilate in his mannerisms. This sort of behaviour has been a staid part of politics in this country. When someone crosses the line it is usually let go with a raised eyebrow. This time it wasn't and the Libs thought they could point score. It failed. Does this mean they are guilty of fabricating evidence? I think not. Does this mean the Labor Party has been caught out doing what governements have been doing for ages? Yes, I think so.

GumbyLearner said:

Great post. ROFLMFAO. Too true Gamblor.

Click to expand...

Hey Gumby Learner, you might want to read this.

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=79682

Tax revenue shortfalls are PROJECTED in the budget due to changes that the Rudd Government promised during the election. Has nothing to do with them borrowing 200 billion right now.

Completely agree Gumby Learner. I have written previously that BOTH parties have failings. Due to my Liberal leanings I can be a bit one eyed on certain matters. This is true for all of us. My comments have also been misconstrued to entertain certain ASF members with a different lean. I have bitten and much to my folly. I now realise what I am dealing with.

YES the Libs during the glory years SHOULD have spent more on infrastructure blah blah blah blah. AND could have done a lot more with the unprecedented income stream of GST and taxes they received during this time. They did not. This is why we voted them out.

LABOR gets in with the giant credit card and racks up the bill for which we all will be paying for the next 20 years or so. FACT. We will soon tire of this just as we did Keating.

LIBERAL will be voted in eventually and true to form they will tighten the belt and toecut and manage to pay off the debt. Which we will get sick of because they are not spending our hard earned $$$ in the manner we want them to.

RESULT:- Politics. It is cyclic. Nothing to fear. It is also the nature of the two parties. One is a socialist form of Utopia and the other is an entrepreneurial Gondwanaland. Such is life.

As for rederob. He is entitled to his right of reply. As you would have read and I have pointed out, I and many others do not appreciate his gutter tactics. His style is to get results quick and go for the jugular in expectation of a knee jerk reaction. That is his want. I prefer to have a slightly more morose application to derive a result.

By the way Gumby Learner ... it was Gamblor that bought the taxation revenue shortfall to the table. Not me. I posted that we are 200 billion dollars in debt. So technically you are right, this thread is not about economics. It is about Kevin Rudd misleading parliament. To which I have not seen a response to the three stements that he made in parliament of "no knowledge" of the affair. He did. Senate Committee proved it. But somehow this has been turned around by some very clever people who are skilful in the nature of politics. SO be it. It makes for healthy debate and should be discussed rationally and with both eyes open. OR it could be a classic case of Doublethink.

Just a quick note on this subject when have the Libs last inherited government in a recessionary environment

Remember the Recession we had to have? Wasn't it the Howard governement that took over when the country was 96 billion in debt? They also survived the Asia meltdown and the 9/11 downturn. Gosh

Anyways ... back to the fray !

trainspotter said:

... this thread is not about economics. It is about Kevin Rudd misleading parliament. To which I have not seen a response to the three stements that he made in parliament of "no knowledge" of the affair. He did. Senate Committee proved it. But somehow this has been turned around by some very clever people who are skilful in the nature of politics. SO be it. It makes for healthy debate and should be discussed rationally and with both eyes open. OR it could be a classic case of Doublethink.

Click to expand...

Still have not seen the evidence that you claim shows Rudd misled Parliament.
Can only conclude it is like Grech's email.

As for Lewis' knowledge of the email, as a journalist he is unlikely to disclose his source/s. However, as I wrote yesterday, having been conned over the matter, Lewis could ethically say who "leaked" to him unless it was a third party: In which case the originator of the email may be known to the leaker, but not Lewis.

Calliope said:

I can see that you have got Red's measure. His tactics have always been to cotton on to a trivial error in the opposing argument and nag, and nag and nag

Click to expand...

If telling a few lies constitutes "a trivial error" then I can see where you are coming from Calliope.

There you go again rederob. You just can't help yourself. Despite all the evidence laid before you and directly from Hansard you are still living in Egypt. De Nial (sic)

"Neither I, nor my office, have ever made any representations on his behalf" Kevin Rudd in parliament. The Senate Committe proved this to be a falsehood.

Just when I thought you were going to carry on this debate like a rational human being you slipped back into the quagmire of primordial ooze.

If somehow you believe a "lie" is that I wrote that Labor had slipped in the polls but not as newsworthy AND I conceded that I had heard it on the Channel 9 news and NOT checked the voracity of this statement then YES I am guilty. Happy now. This wil be third time we have discussed this point. I also conceded that I was wrong in this statement/opinion. Somehow you got your panties in a bunch and went on some incoherent babble about I had plenty of time to "fix" this. And threw in something about a Galaxy poll which once again I have taken great lengths to explain to you but somehow you still remain confused on this point.

Now from your mighty vantage point of looking down on us poor neophytes as to whom you choose to plunder could you please explain to the collective as to what part of this you are unable to comprehend? The gutter tactics is becoming pathetic but somehow strangely amusing from my side of the fence.

You have taken the time and effort to criticise, nay, crucify many people with your malignant strategems and it really does bring to light your personality traits. Do you suffer from a God complex?

If your effort is to keep the thread going passed the 15,000 view list then you are sure doing a heck of a job. Other than that I am fresh out of ideas as to how someone can become as petulant as you are in your display of repugnance to the other peole in this forum.

trainspotter said:

"Neither I, nor my office, have ever made any representations on his behalf" Kevin Rudd in parliament. The Senate Committe proved this to be a falsehood.

Click to expand...

Where is this evidence from the Senate?

rederob said:

If telling a few lies constitutes "a trivial error" then I can see where you are coming from Calliope.

Click to expand...

Obviously you aspire to high moral standards. Is it true that the taxpayer is paying you for all the time you spend pushing the Labor cause on this thread?

The evidence is in the form of the following:

Senior Treasury officials worked on Mr Grant's case. (amongst others)

Emails between Mr Swan's staff and Mr Grech were being sent to the Treasurer's home fax. (two other dealerships also were afforded his home fax)

Ford Credit Greg Cohen allegedly claimed he would receive "special treatment" in their 500 million application to Ozcar if they took on Mr Grant's dealership. (Mr. Cohen is now distancing himself from this allegation)

Swan told the Parliament in June his office had "made representations" to Treasury on behalf of Grant, but that Grant had been treated "just like everyone else" and the Treasurer "had no idea what the outcome of that was". (In his defence he might have not known the outcome, but unlikely)

If you're in any doubt Grant's application was receiving special attention read some of the emails that became public on Friday. Take this one addressed to the Treasurer, from his Departmental Liaison Officer, Andrew Thomas.

"Treasurer, Both Godwin Grech (the senior Treasury official who testified yesterday he'd been instructed by the Prime Minister's office to treat Grant as a special case) have spoken to John Grant this evening."

Under the heading "Immediate Action", the email to Swan continues: "Godwin will arrange for Capital Financial to contact John in the next couple of days. Capital had been very aggressive in the market, so is a good chance to take on John's business. As a fall back, Godwin will also raise John's case with Ford Credit when he sees them in Melbourne on Monday. John has not been in contact with either. We are confident we can arrange for John to be taken up by one of these two. Both Godwin and I will keep in close contact with John over the coming week."

Courtesy of further Senate Estimates hearings on Friday we now have a flurry of emails sent personally to the Treasurer from his officials reporting directly to him about the progress of Grant's application. They were even cc'd to the head of the Treasury, Ken Henry.

Now I am no lawyer but I reckon there should be a case to answer. These all relate to Swan. Let's not forget that Mr Grant is Mr Rudds neighbour, has previously given him a ute free of charge, donated to the Labor party with cash in kind and helped rasie funds to pay off Mr Rudd's legal bill.

Now all this is a matter of public knowledge and has come forth from the Senate Committee Inquiry into the affair.

The outcome is that Grech will more than likely lose his job and have a nervous breakdown and Malcolm Turnbull will have some wonderful scar tissue arround his buttocks from the smack on the **** he got.

Like I have said in previous posts: This is not a new thing for a government to do, to assist a constituent. Normal pratice. Getting caught trying to cover it up then having to turnover the documentation to a Senate Inquiry. Uncommon.

As far as the public record will show ... Labor will have a victory.

Now rederob, as a lawyer and you were presented with this kind of information would you take this case on? Forgetting the proponents involved, let's say it was some random companies theoretically. Would you advise your prospective client that they did not have a case?

Or would you engage based upon the evidence before you?

trainspotter, there is no evidence from what you presented above that Rudd's oft quoted statement is untrue.
Money for old rope if it ever got to court.

No evidence? Pishaw you say ! The media has tried this one and not a court. Hmmmmmm Malcolm Turnbull is a QC. You would think he could make a judgement call to pursue. Sometimes it is better to be a coward and live to fight another day I am thinking.

Good to see that your eloquent response has a clean edge to it. Let' see if it can remain on track.

Rather a disappointing day for you trainspotter.
No credible evidence against Rudd despite your repeated assertions of his guilt.
Keep up the excellent work!

Rederob,

What's your take on Wayne Swan's involvement ?

rederob said:

Rather a disappointing day for you trainspotter.
No credible evidence against Rudd despite your repeated assertions of his guilt.
Keep up the excellent work!

Click to expand...

Well rederob ... I thank you for the backhanded compliment. Greatly appreciated, I must say. A disappointing day .. yes, I got caught doing 73km/h in a 60 km/h zone. Damnation. I was actually rushing from my home office to my office block to respond to your retorts !! Te he ... like I said previously, strangely amusing from this side of the fence.

Credibilty is a matter of opinion. Like yours, mine differs. I would attempt to say that I have landed a few blows on the stinking carcass that we have bloated out here for consumption.

It is not ours to determine who is right or wrong. It will be a matter of fact for the minions to devour via the media. They will vote their preferences in good time my prickly adversary. Of this I am certain.

drsmith said:

Rederob,
What's your take on Wayne Swan's involvement ?

Click to expand...

Swan bought a car from Grant, so Ripoll was probably told that when Grant sought OzCar representation through him. Grant and Swan spoke afterwards. Subsequent dealings show Swan's staffers and his Department did their utmost to ensure Grant's business was not going to be affected by several of the big insurers pulling out of Australia.
For now there is no evidence that Swan sought special treatment for Grant, although he may have conveyed that verbally, possibly through his staffers. It would be difficult to conceive his staffers would offer him up. If there is other written evidence then Swan has cooked his goose.
From my experience in Canberra it is quite common for Departmental officers, such as Grech, to be aware of a Minister's prior relationships and dealings, and go out of their way to please.
My suspicion is that Swan really is telling the truth. My preference is that he is replaced by Tanner, but that's another matter.
My rationale is based on the drying paper trail. Had Swan been deeply interested in Grant's progress, Grech would have ensured there were emails to him or his office that clearly spelled out when and how the matter concluded.
My other suspicion is that February had Rudd's heavyweight Ministers working flat out on responses to subprime and the ongoing stimulus packages that needed to be put in place.
Swan was most likely briefed that OzCar had taken away pent up concerns from dealerships, and therefore could let the program strut its stuff. Accordingly, my view is that Swan's attention to Grant was relatively fleeting, and that the "special treatment" that is claimed was more likely the result of his minions going all out to please.
Swan has been comfortable dealing with his version of events, and his body language suggests he believes he is telling the truth. Swan is clearly uncomfortable in explaining why other dealers didn't get the phone call from him, but that says more about his lacklustre media persona than his honesty.
Finally, my opinion is that Turnbull's tactics against Swan are more to do with a chance that something more will be flushed out. Turnbull is smart enough to know two things. First, his case that Swan has mislead Parliament was thin to begin, and has worn thinner over time. Secondly, that he needs public opinion to back him against Swan, not just his Party. On this latter point he is climbing onto a narrowing limb.

rederob, rederob, rederob. I am impressed. AND I don't impress easily. Please do not accept my gratitude as some sort of uneasy truce. The sententious and expressive way you have responded is of the utmost regalement that I knew could be found once we have cut away the facade of splenetic verbosity.

Fianally, a logistical answer that can be scrutinised to the nnnth degree by the other members of ASF. I eagerly look forward to future posts of the same degree of spirit.

Enough of blowing hot air up your rectum.

Agreed that it is more than likely the servants were out to please their masters in the way of Treasury officials furthering the cause of Mr. Grants application for funding via Ozcar. But like all good peasants they require a master to instruct them to do so. Like a football team when the players keep losing it is the coach whose neck is on the chopping block. At the end of the day it is THAT person who pays the piper.

In this instance it appears that the best thing for both sides of politics was the winter break. 6 weeks for the whole torrid affair to die down to a pathetic whimper. It will go down in the annals of history as one of the more grubby name calling solicitations of our two party preferred Westminster system. Harumph. Bring on the next tete a tete of our masters who will undoubtedly have a no holds bar approach. Round one is to Labor but the fight is not over yet.