There are now three examples which indicate his lack of close intimacy with forthright truthfulness:
1. His attempts to distance himself from the James Ashby complaint about Peter Slipper was full of denials which were proved completely wrong; and the "oh I forgot about that" excuses were just not credible.
2. The explanation attempted as to why that Labor MP was given a pair (that her request had not specified it was her sick child she wanted to visit) was shown to be wrong by reporters as soon as it said it:
Mr Pyne said the leave was requested on Monday for Ms Rowland to be with a "ill family member" but did not specify it was her child.Given the brazenness that would have to be assumed of this attempted excuse if he knew it was a lie, maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt? Well perhaps, but he does have pretty brazen form on the Ashby matter, and then we have this latest item just from this last week.
"Warren Entsch quite rightly thought … that he would like further information," he said.
When it was put to Mr Pyne by reporters that the letter from Ms Rowland to Mr Entsch clearly stated the leave was to be with her child he said he would be asking further questions.
"I might," he said.
"That’s not the information that I have been provided by the chief whip," he said.
3. Pyne was on breakfast TV (can't find a link, but it was shown on Insiders this morning) talking about a letter he had written to the Independents asking if they would support a no confidence motion in the government. Trouble was, the letter had been given to The Australia, but was sent via email that arrived an hour or so after the TV appearance. He was challenged by Albanese that the Independents had not received such a letter; Pyne made out that they had definitely been sent.
Once again, he has a set up whereby he can (I suppose) blame someone else for his misleading statements.
Even allowing for routine slipperiness from politicians, I just do not trust the guy. I predict that, assuming an Abbott election win in September, Pyne will be the first Minister to come unstuck in some scandal involving dishonesty.
5 comments:
Pollies can be pretty open about lying once they leave office. Graham Richardson famously admitted to it on television for instance. Do you know the story from the Menzies era in which, during one election, the Coalition hung on to power in a close election with a few seats in Victoria. One of those members was Jim Killen, and when he was asked by reporters afterwards what Menzies had said to him, Killen said, "He [Menzies] said 'You are magnificent, Killen!'." Later it turned out, I think by Killen's own admission, that he had just felt put on the spot by reporters and instantly invented a glowing endorsement for himself from Menzies!
Tony Windsor has told some porkies; he seems to do it habitually. His technique seems to be sneaky about which subjects to lie about - ie, make it about a slightly abstruse subject which is not likely to get media attention. Thus he claimed in an interview about the NBN, (paraphrase) 'The Snowy Mountain River Scheme* did not have a cost benefit analysis, if it had it would never have got off the drawing board'. That was a lie, or at the very least it betrayed his complete lack of knowledge of the era - the scheme did indeed have a cost benefit analysis. His style has suited his position as an independent who - until this electoral cycle - has not had much to do with the national media. That said, his latest porkie, about the 'significant rumours' that Gina Rinehart was funding Barnaby Joyce's campaign in New England (Rinehart later issued a statement denying these claims), bucked the trend in that it was about two highly-public figures making an intervention in what has become a highly-contested political seat. He must be a little worried!
Why should I trust Gina Rinehart? Her own children have accused her of deceit.
The rumour, which Windsor did repeat outside of Parliament, was that she would help fund Barnaby not via a direct donation to the Nationals but to some associated entity.
Given that he did repeat this outside of parliamentary privilege, I actually give it greater credence than some other things he has claimed.
Point taken about Gina Rinehart not necessarily being trustworthy, though I should note the quote about the NBN/cost benefit analysis was said during the course of an ABC interview, so that wasn't bound by parliamentary privilege either.
Can't he just claim general ignorance of the Snowy Mountain Scheme? It's not like he was personally involved.
Did you see on Catallaxy on Friday that AFR reported that some private polling indicated Windsor still has a good chance of retaining his seat? I hope he does - Abbott getting an overwhelming victory of the type he seems destined to will not be good. Overwhelming majorities always tend to lead to some bad outcomes.
Well it was either Windsor being generally ignorant of the Snowy River scheme or lying, though when I first encountered that quote a year or so ago, I think what struck me was the sense that Windsor just didn't care - either way, he knew he'd get away with it. Personally I think he's more likely to retire than contest the next election (there was talk of him retiring anyway, and pollies also like to retire rather than be voted out) but you never know.
'Overwhelming majorities always tend to lead to some bad outcomes'.... speaking from a Queensland experience there? ;) Hung parliaments lead to bad outcomes too (politics is never perfect), but effectively, isn't any result where one party is clearly in the majority 'overwhelming'? (Then again I suppose a majority matters more in parties like Labor, who have a binding vote, than in the Liberals and Nationals, where the members can be more unruly.)
Post a Comment