Has anyone asked Costello about the PMs “children overboard” claims? Maybe he’d respond along the lines of John Anderson, saying Prime Minister John Howard is a trustworthy individual and most Australians know it. Or maybe we’d get one of the more equivocal formulas (perhaps a quote from Howard himself) of which Costello is so fond. Unless things get drastically worse for Howard, I can’t see Costello making a challenge (Chris Sheil discusses this further) but I also doubt that he’d be willing to tie his own credibility to Howard’s.
As the story keeps running, I’m beginning to think it possible, albeit remotely, that Howard might be forced to ‘fess up. There’s been a new development every day, and there’s at least one more to come – the Liberal Party dirt unit’s campaign against Scrafton for having porn on his computer here’s an old newspaper article [PDF], linked by Crikey which reports the dirt unit’s role (hat tip to Ron, commenting on Ken Parish) This story gets a blogospheric run from Bernie Slattery here. This may damage Scrafton, but it will also remind everyone of previous similar campaigns, against Mick Keelty, the “doddering daiquiri diplomats” and so on.
In addition Howard’s attempt to parse as supporting his own story a statement from the former head of the Defence Department public affairs unit, Jenny McKenry, confirming Scrafton’s story invites a clarification from her.
And so far, I have yet to see a single person, no matter how vehemently they support Howard, willing to say that they believe he is telling the truth[1].
fn1. To be clear here, I don’t mean something “morally true” or “true enough to satisfy the Australian people” or “true in the postmodern sense”, or “true, given appropriate rules of grammatical construction”. I mean that when Howard says something like “at no time during his telephone calls with Mr Scrafton had he discussed photos relating to the sinking of Siev4 on October 8, 2001”, this actually means that the photos were not mentioned by either party.
John Quiggin 
John Howard couldn’t lie straight on a torturer’s rack.
In times like these having a PM with a propensity to lie is bloody dangerous.
The temptation to put self-interest ahead of the nation’s becomes a real issue.
I didn’t suggest they search records, just ask around- it’s funny how people come out of the woodwork if they get their 15 minutes of fame (and a chance to bag a politician). I can’t believe a public employee mentioning the tax they pay- this merely represents a pay cut- they don’t actually generate any wealth. If it’s any of your business, the firm is a customs brokerage- I’m the biggest revenue genrator in the firm, but if I don’t earn I don’t get paid. Pretty simple really. BTW- most solicitors are encorporated, only barristers operate as partners or sole traders. (I have a sibling in both camps). I know enough about criminal law to have been delegated by the minister to order personal searches, issue warrants and institute prosecutions. I did my own encorporation, and do my own property transfers etc. Any other personal details you require, or any further questions regarding my own probity?
No – but I still want to know if you think Howard lied!
In this instance and in the absence of any admissable evidence to the contrary, I would say no.
Paul, I am delighted to hear you are such a formidable generator of our nation’s wealth. I didn’t ask about probity (was it ever in doubt?) but am equally delighted that you are such an upright citizen.
And I am really pleased that you weren’t suggesing that people unlawfully search hospital records. We wouldn’t want the words “conspiracy to commit” thrown in your general direction, would we?
But I am afraid I have to disagree with you on whether public employees are generators of wealth. If you are right, it means that those people employed in the privately owned electricity sector in Victoria are wealth generators, but those employed in the publicly owned electricity sector in NSW are not. How can mere ownership make such a fundamental difference, when both sets of people are doing the same thing? Likewise, doctors employed in public versus private hospitals, lawyers employed in Attorney Generals departments versus those employed in private firms, academics employed at the University of Queensland versus those employed at Bond University … I’m sure you get the idea.
There is, very ironically, one way in which you might be right. Because public service departments don’t make a profit, but private firms do, it might be argued that if the not for profit part of the public sector grows bigger, this absence of profit, or surplus, retards the growth of the economy.
Th problem is, this is a fundamental Marxist idea. You’re not a closet Marxist by any chance, are you?
Dirt unit ?
Talk about unfounded claims.
I used to be. The big difference is access to competition, and whether a service is supplied solely to comply with regulation. No reason why AG’s etc can’t be- they brief out a large amount of their work anyway. As to power genration, f the power market was opened up to competition rather than the current farcical state of government-owned corporate monopolies, they would then be involved in wealth (and power) generation. In Qld we have the rediculous situation of a grid falling to bits because the state government has been using Energex as a cash cow. Same goes for tertiary institutions and schools- open up the market, and expose the institutions (and their staff) to the requirement to produce to be paid.
That’s why I’m not a fan of John Winston- he is very much an old-style social democrat rather than a Friedman free-marketeer.
Why isn’t Mike Scrafton’s claim admissable evidence? This isn’t a court of law, so in a sense that irrelevant anyway, but I’m puzzled.
It’s admissable- the statement in support is not (hearsay).
On the balance of probability, I’m prepared to believe Howard, due to his higher level of known credibility.
Anything about Scrafton’s past would also be admissable, if it questioned his credibility. Facts are, he has a prior recorded indiscretion- Howard doesn’t.
In this instance and in the absence of any admissable evidence to the contrary, I would say no.
If there were a court hearing in which the question were whether Howard had knowingly made false statements after having talked to Scrafton, why wouldn’t Scrafton’s direct evidence of what he told Howard in the T/C be admissible?
Are you really a lawyer?
Sorry, Paul, was writing that as you posted. Obviously, I misunderstood your earlier contention.
I’m not inclined to quibble further, given that a fellow who can make a statement like this:
On the balance of probability, I’m prepared to believe Howard, due to his higher level of known credibility.
is obviously not playing with a full deck.
‘Twas wondering when the personal invective would start.
QED.
I wondered that too, and if we’re into astute QEDing, the answer came somewhat earlier in this thread.
“When will you lefty tossers get it into your heads”
“Bahnisch, did you access Anna 1300 times, at weekends? Scrafton’s a wanker and not a very smart one at that.”
Can’t speak for Brian, but http://www.marypierce.org, a site I used to visit, is sadly deceased.
Which reminds me Sedge – I think I asked Brian to check some tennis stats for me the year Mary Pierce won the French Open – so his excursion to the Anna Kournikovna site was entirely innocent. However, nobody should ever believe anything I say because I wouldn’t claim the same about my Mary searching!
Which reminds me Mark, have you finished checking those Kristin Scott-Thomas stats for me?
It’s a work in progress, Sedge…
I agree with Fyodor, this is getting ridiculous.
Can I remind Paul et al that Howard saw Scrafton as a trusted source, which is why he asked him to view the video for him, and give his opinion of it.
As a public servant you have to give the pollies what they ask for. If they seem less than fully informed, you take advantage of your access to inform them. If you don’t like what they are doing you can tell them things that make it harder for them to hold their desired course of action.
I can see this in Scrafton’s advice to Howard.
Scrafton has explicitly recognised that Howard may have had other sources of advice, but after he had told Howard that he knew no-one in Defence who believed children had been thrown he expected some equivocation in Howard’s statements. Howard could not have been more definite. As Warbo pointed out:
“I have no information or suggestion that they [Navy] have reviewed their advice, no, I haven’t.”
Now we have Beazley on PM who asked Howard a series of questions on notice about Scrafton’s multiple conversations and what they covered. It seems that Beazley knew all about Scrafton’s version of the events in February 2003.
But he didn’t get it from Scrafton. About a year earlier he heard Howard say of his discussions with Scrafton that two people can have different recollections of events.
The puzzling thing to Beazley was that at that time there was only one version. He figured Howard must be worried about another version.
So he kept his ears open and picked it up from other sources in Defence.
So if Howard is telling the truth we are supposed to believe that Scrafton started spreading a false version immediately after briefing Howard.
Howard’s spies then told him of this and Howard started trotting out his defence about 18 months before he had to.
One really must choose between these two scenarios. Scrafton’s version seems far more believable.
Re Anna K, for the record once was enough. Then I went and had a shower to make sure I didn’t catch something.
Mark’s sort of right. He was a bigger fan of Mary P than I was and it came from a conversation with him.
I didn’t know anything about 1300 times, and still don’t from a reliable source. Sorry!
I think Fyodor is right on this too. Lay off the poor sod. It wasn’t a conviction and I’m yet to be convinced it was a serious misdemeanour. The evidence is otherwise.
We should think the best of people, not the worst. I’ve extended the same courtesy to Howard and he has disappointed me so many times.
I know this debate has moved on butI can’t resist making this point.
“..public employees, farting around on my dollar?”
You mean like that bloke whose salary is paid out of our taxes, John Winston Howard?
At least we have the option to give him the arse every three years, unlike tenured public employees. Do me a favour.
PB, you are out of touch. Public employees have no job security anymore. They can be flicked more quickly than Ian Thorpe dives off the blocks, and many are, with no recourse.
Only if they’re contractors- full-timers under the PSA are harder to get rid of than a persistent dose of crabs. Labor brought in legislation which allowed for dismissal for inefficiency, and I raised one of the first casrs under it to get rid of a complete cretin. Took three years, and they paid her out in the end. Now she would probably sue for wrongful dismissal, get a wedge and be reinstated.
Oh blogger, where art thou?
Due to circumstances beyond my control I am currently in Huntsville, Alabama. It’s been quite a drive and it includes an encounter with a certain alt.country singer in Nashville, Tennessee, and a lesson in agriculture. Me to my wife as…