Newspoll: 53-47

3,568 comments on “Newspoll: 53-47”

1. 3390 Glen – you just have it in for Swan. He is safe.

2. Rogan
   given that the loan of the car by Grant to Rudd was on the public record, that could be anybody.

   And arguably anyone who lives in the PM’s elecotrate, or Swan’s, has support near the top of government.

3. [Beat you to it Dario!!]

   Too quick for me 🙂

4. [But if the email is a fake, isn’t it’s author someone who knew that Grant had at least some support near the top of the government?]

   It’s no secret that Grant is a car dealer who is an acquaintance of Rudd’s. If you want to frame Rudd for improperly trying to gain a benefit for a friend, you have to design a plausible scenario – with someone who actually is a friend. Anyone close to politics could have faked this scenario up. Staffers in the offices of Liberal front-benchers from Qld would be a good place to start.

5. Greck says there was communication so its up to Rudd to find out what happened…

6. [Greck says there was communication so its up to Rudd to find out what happened…]

   That’s not what he said Glen

7. [Bit of a random guess, don’t you think?]

   If you’re going to fake an email, you want it to sound plausible. It would make sense to do some research (you wouldn’t have to do much) so that if someone checked the story would ring true.

8. [Anyone close to politics could have faked this scenario up. Staffers in the offices of Liberal front-benchers from Qld would be a good place to start.]

   In particular, those who were also given financial or in kind support by John Grant.

9. Greck is and was a confused old fool. he should be put in the special project section.

10. [when there is clear evidence at least one of them mislead Parliament.]

    And what is this “clear evidence” Glen? Pray table it forthwith.

11. Scorpio @ 3371

    I just ran: ‘Turnbull false email’ on Google and got 89 results. It will be interesting to see how the proportions go from here on in…

12. [Greck says there was communication so its up to Rudd to find out what happened…]

    So, let’s see —

    Treasury and the PM’s office have released statements saying they have checked and rechecked the email register.

    The Auditor General has been instructed to conduct an enquiry.

    The AFP have been instructed to conduct an enquiry.

    I’d say that indicates fairly strongly that the PM is trying to find out what happened – unless, of course, you expect the PM to take time off and personally conduct one.

13. Adam hows about we start with those faxes that prove Swanny boy misled parliament…

14. [But if the email is a fake, isn’t it’s author someone who knew that Grant had at least some support near the top of the government?]

    I would think that the fake e-mail is a fairly recent concoction and done after the first allegations about the ute being provided to Rudd by Mr Grant.

    So of course, that would explain your query?

15. Boerwar 3374
    [Ditto for the way in which 2020 outcomes will feed into 2050 targets.]
    I know, plus the extra heat that will be emanating from Malcolm T over the next little while – every little bit counts.

    But the targets cannot keep being undermined by the imperatives of short term political cycles around the world. At some point very soon the bullet must be bitten. The leaders KNOW the science is right, or even conservative, as the Synthesis Report now tells us, yet again. There must be some hope that the US can play big role at Copenhagen. Trouble is, Obama’s got so much on his plate. How much persuasion can one man generate?

    Synthesis Report article:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618085750.htm

16. [Greck says there was communication so its up to Rudd to find out what happened…]

    Grech did not say he had any communication from Rudd or Swan. He had communications from Andrew Thomas in Swan’s office, which was perfectly proper. He said he had an unclear recollection that he might have had an email from the PMO. This email has not been unearthed. The AG has now set the AFP to find it. If it ever existed, it will be found. If it is found, and it is from Charlton, then Charlton has been lying. If it is not found, then the email text which has been published is a fake, and Turnbull has not case.

    Which part of this don’t you understand?

17. [those faxes that prove Swanny boy misled parliament…]

    Except they don’t

18. SMH headline is

    [AFP to probe email]

    Is that like a visit to get your prostrate checked, the many places one can hide an email. Should Malcolm worried now.

19. [It would make sense to do some research (you wouldn’t have to do much) so that if someone checked the story would ring true.]

    Fair point, but do you think they knew about the connection between Swan and Grant? Or was that just a coincidence?

20. [I would think that the fake e-mail is a fairly recent concoction and done after the first allegations about the ute being provided to Rudd by Mr Grant.]

    Exactly. It doesn’t matter what date was on the fake email. It could have been typed up any time after the event.

21. [Adam hows about we start with those faxes that prove Swanny boy misled parliament…]

    They were faxes *to* Swan, not from him. He didn’t ask for them. Read Swan’s transcript. They do not prove that he misled Parliament.

22. You have no proof that the Libs are behind this ‘fake email’ but Rudd and Co say it’s our doing trying to rub the blame on us when it is they who have failed!

    So it proves Swan knew about the favourable treatment of John Grant and so he lied to Parliament 😀

23. oh dear, it’s getting worse and worse for Turnbull. This is the character of potential PM? Heaven forbids.

    [Malcolm Turnbull never saw Kevin Rudd email

    By Glenn Milne, June 21, 2009 12:00am

    OPPOSITION leader Malcolm Turnbull admitted yesterday he had never seen the mysterious email that he used to demand the resignations of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.

    Mr Turnbull now says he has been relying on Mr Lewis’s reports for his resignation calls on Mr Rudd and Mr Swan. He denied anyone in the Opposition wrote the email or sent it to Mr Lewis.]

    http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,27574,25665217-5006009,00.html

24. [So it proves Swan knew about the favourable treatment of John Grant and so he lied to Parliament]

    Perhaps in a parallel universe where yes means no and no means yes Glen

25. [Is that like a visit to get your prostrate checked, the many places one can hide an email. Should Malcolm worried now.]

    Bring on the Ansell Latex Gloves and KY Jelly I say – and we want the video footage broadcast as well 🙂

26. [By Glenn Milne, June 21, 2009 12:00am]

    ????? Now is 20/6/09 10:15pm

27. [So it proves Swan knew about the favourable treatment of John Grant and so he lied to Parliament]

    Read and learn, Glen

    TRANSCRIPT
    of
    THE HON WAYNE SWAN MP
    Treasurer

    DOORSTOP
    Electorate Office

    20 June 2009
    E&OE
    SUBJECTS: OzCar
    TREASURER: It’s fairly obvious that yesterday News Limited was provided with a fake email about alleged representations made by the Prime Minister’s office to the Treasury. Now, I think the Opposition has a responsibility to come out today and to rule out any role in the creation, distribution or promotion of that fake email. Now, there have been reports today that the Opposition has sighted this fake email. So, I think Opposition Leader Mr Turnbull should provide a full detailing of when they saw it, and who gave it to them. This is absolutely essential to know, because we have this smear campaign against the Prime Minister, which has been mounted on the basis of a false email which has been sighted by the Opposition. And I think today Mr Turnbull has a responsibility to outline how he saw it, where he saw it, and who provided that to the Opposition.
    Also, I welcome the opportunity today to clear up a few things that have been written and alleged about my participation and my statements to Parliament. I want to make this point really clear: I stand by the comments I made to Parliament, and nothing that has been raised in the last 24 hours contradicts what I said to the Parliament. Now, I told the Parliament I was unaware of the outcome of any of the discussions between Mr Grant and the Treasury, and I stand behind that statement 100 per cent. Nothing that was said yesterday, nothing that was in the emails, nothing in the testimony, contradicts that statement at all. And if Mr Turnbull has any evidence to the contrary, he should provide it. And the reality is this: that there was no outcome for Mr Grant out of the discussions that he had with OzCar and Ford Credit – no outcome whatsoever.
    I’ve met Mr Grant three of four times over the years. He’s a reasonably prominent Brisbane businessman, but he’s not a friend of mine. He’s certainly somebody who is respected in the business community. A few years ago I did buy a used car from him, but I have not had any extensive contact with Mr Grant.
    Now, I’d like to make the point that Mr Grant was not referred to me by the Prime Minister, not referred to me by the Prime Minister’s office. Mr Grant was referred to me by Mr Bernie Ripoll, the member for Oxley, and that is the way it should be. Mr Ripoll represents that area in Parliament where the car dealership is. So, Bernie was doing what local MPs always do. And as the correspondence before the committee yesterday shows, Mr Ripoll emailed my office. Many other MPs did. Kay Hull, Mr Ramsey, Mr Billson all emailed my office, made contact, and their contact was dealt with promptly by my office. Now, when I was called by Mr Grant, I did with him as I do with anyone else. I spoke to him for a few minutes, and I then referred him to the DLO in my office. That is the sequence of events. Now, it’s been suggested that I spent an extensive amount of time on this case. I did not spend an extensive amount of time on this case, but I did do what I always do, which is to attend to representations that are made to me. And that correspondence is there for all to see, as it is with the other MPs – Mrs Hull, Mr Ramsey and Mr Billson.
    Now, there’s been some absolutely absurd commentary in the papers today that some of the emails were sent to my home fax machine. Now, all sorts of things come to my home fax machine. And sometimes, if I’m spending a night in Brisbane – and that is rare – there can be hundreds of pages of material on my fax. So, to suggest that because something went to my home fax, it was something that I was attending to immediately then, is just simply inaccurate. On a rare night or day in Brisbane, the fact is that fax is clogged, and on some occasions – this is a matter of some contention in my house – it’s out of paper, and I have to go through the routine of sorting all that out. But I receive an extensive amount of material on my home fax. And in the case of some of the emails, they were not emails that were requested by me or my office to be sent to my home fax. That is simply the situation.
    So, I do really welcome the opportunity to clear up some of the misrepresentations that have been put into the press over the last couple of days. And over to you.
    JOURNALIST: You’ve seen a few beat-ups in your time. How would you rate this one?
    TREASURER: This is a smear campaign being run by the Opposition against both the Prime Minister and myself. They are so bereft of any alternative ideas about the economy that this is what they are doing. I just might remind you that in this instance, what we’re dealing with here is a really serious issue that I was dealing with as Treasurer and that the Cabinet was dealing with, caused by the global financial crisis. So, there’s the withdrawal of financiers from financing car dealerships. The livelihoods of thousands of people and businesses were on the line, and car dealerships were contacting MPs, who were contacting me. Their industry organisation was talking extensively to the Government about what sort of response the Government should be engaged in, and the Government responded promptly, because what we were dealing with was the livelihoods and employment of thousands of people, particularly I might add across regional and rural Australia. So, there were many representations being made. Mr Grant made representations. Many others did. But he was dealt with appropriately by my office and by the department.
    JOURNALIST: Were the names of other car dealers included in faxes sent to your home, or was he the only one?
    TREASURER: I’d have to check, but the reason that that fax went to my home was that Mr Grech hit ‘reply all’ in response to an email that had gone from my office. It was not requested by me or my office that it go to my home fax. But could I just deal with one representation, and this comes from Mrs Hull who was the member for Riverina. And this makes a very important point, and it goes to the core of what MPs and Ministers do representing their communities. At 12.17 pm on Friday 20 March, Mrs Hull contacted my office and she dealt with an officer. And the subject was ‘car dealer crisis – please help’. There’s then a long discussion about problems in her Riverina electorate. What occurred in this case, this is Mrs Hull, was a few minutes later – she was faxed by Mrs Hull on 12.17 pm – my office replied at 12.30 pm to Mrs Hull. This demonstrates that my office was taking seriously representations being made by other members of Parliament, but also by car dealers at the time, some of whom were going directly to the Treasury. There was a lot of activity in this area. So, I don’t want people to think that somehow there was one representation from one person, and there wasn’t other activity going on. There was a lot of other activity going on, because in this industry at that time, there was a real problem. And the Government and I particularly always take seriously the importance of receiving representations from people. And I hope that a hallmark of my treasurership is that I do keep listening to people when there’s a problem in the community. And I’ll just never stop doing that. And I make no apologies for doing that, because that’s what the people of Australia pay me to do. And they expect me to be available, and I think many people who know me know that I am available. I’m generally available 24 hours a day.
    JOURNALIST: Were you available for any of those other car dealers to talk personally to them?
    TREASURER: Well, should they have wanted to talk personally to me, I could well have been available for them if that was possible. On this occasion, Mr Grant came through to me because the local MP, Mr Bernie Ripoll, put him in contact with me. I was contacted by Mr Ripoll. I said fine. Get him to give me a call. I spent a couple of minutes on the phone with him and referred him to a DLO.
    That is not uncommon in terms of dealing with a whole host of representations that I receive. Each week in this country I would speak to a significant number of business people about issues in the economy as they impact the economy overall or as they impact their particular business. And I’ll tell you this: if you go and talk to the industry associations, they do appreciate the fact that the Government is responsive, because we do take these issues very seriously.
    JOURNALIST: Is Mr Grech a liar?
    TREASURER: Mr Grech has given evidence to the committee yesterday and that is appropriate for him to do that. He will have maybe a different view of some of the discussions that he has had than others will have. You see I wasn’t present for the discussions that he had with the car dealers or necessarily overseeing the discussions that he was having with my office. And all of those things are on the public record. The emails are there for all to see.
    JOURNALIST: He says he was left in no doubt that this was no ordinary constituent. Why would that be the case?
    TREASURER: Well, he dealt with Mr Thomas in my office. That is not Mr Thomas’ recollection of events. But he also went on in his evidence yesterday to make the point that he felt that there were reasons why he was speaking more extensively to Mr Grant which went to the core of Mr Grant’s concerns which were different than concerns that were raised by other car dealers. And he specifically cited the case of the car dealer in Riverina who had been referred through to him via Mrs Hull, via my office. So, it is entirely appropriate that he gives his evidence, but I think the emails demonstrate absolutely that we handled matters appropriately.
    I make this point: these emails conclude on 27 February. The argument being put against myself is that there was some special treatment given. Well, given that there is no further email traffic between the end of February and now, and given that there was no outcome for Mr Grant, how does that stack up? It simply doesn’t stack up. What you see from the email trail is that when the initial representation was made, there was a prompt reaction from my office. That representation went through the DLO into the Treasury, further contact about that over the next week, and no further contact about it from then right through to now. Which is where I began this press conference making the point that I didn’t know until I read it in the newspapers what the outcome had been. And the outcome had been that Mr Grant I think has stayed with his existing financier.
    JOURNALIST: So, how many other different individual cases are faxed to your home?
    TREASURER: Well, it wasn’t faxed specifically to my home at my request. It happened because the responsible official hit ‘Reply All’. It was not requested by either myself or my office that it go to my home. But can I make this point, and it goes to having some understanding about how a Minister operates and how he communicates with his office. I will receive many things from my office handed to me when I’m in Canberra. So, many responses to representations that have been made will come through to me because I’m actually in the office. But it may be that if I’m home on the rare night, and that has been until relatively recently pretty rare, they may come through on the fax because I’m actually in Brisbane for a night. There’s nothing unusual about something coming to my home fax. Many things that come to my home fax are things that I’ve not requested. But had I been in Canberra and not in Brisbane, it probably would have been handed to me along with a lot of other material, as is the usual practice.
    JOURNALIST: What do you remember of that brief conversation you had with Mr Grant?
    TREASURER: He indicated to me his concern about the lack of finance for the industry as a whole. He was worried about what that meant for him. He was making inquiries about what the Government’s announcement of the creation of OzCar would mean for him. I told him that that would be a commercial matter, it was a commercial operation, he should deal with the DLO from my office and discuss it with the Department, which is what he did.
    JOURNALIST: (Inaudible) lived around the corner from the PM and was an old friend?
    TREASURER: Well, I was unaware that he lived around the corner from the PM. So, I wasn’t aware that he lived up the road. I’ve been aware of Mr Grant as anyone who’s been in South East Queensland has been would have been for the last 20 or 30 years, but in my case I’ve probably met him only three or four times over an extensive period.
    JOURNALIST: Have you attended a Club 51 function?
    TREASURER: No. Never.
    JOURNALIST: Are you a member?
    TREASURER: I’m a bit old for it. I’m heading up to 55!
    JOURNALIST: Were Treasury officials…
    TREASURER: … a bit younger.
    JOURNALIST: …ever asked to make sure Mr Grant was included in any financial assistance?
    TREASURER: They had no power to do that. This is why some of this discussion is not accurate. Because OzCar had not been set up, what was being done by Treasury officials was simply referring on car dealers to finance companies. You see, what happened was that there was a real problem in the industry. It has been indicated to us that a couple of very significant financiers were going to withdraw and to withdraw rapidly. GE Finance was one of those, and I think it may have been the financier for Mr Grant. I’d have to double check that. The truth was that after we announced the creation of OzCar, it turned out that the financiers weren’t going to withdraw as quickly, and therefore we didn’t necessarily need as big a vehicle to cope with the car dealers as we thought. And many of them remained financed by their existing financiers, contrary to what had seemed to be the case earlier on. That is, from a public policy point of view, the announcement by us that we would provide a vehicle was the encouragement or the spur for existing financiers who were in the field and not withdrawing to go out and get new customers. And that’s precisely what happened. So, it was our announcement which actually prompted greater financial stability in the industry, and meant that many financiers who thought they were going to be without finance, maintained finance or found a new one, because existing companies were expanding their book, rather than contracting their book. And that was a great outcome. That was a terrific outcome for Australia, because what it meant was that what could have been quite catastrophic in the case of many rural and regional dealers, that that catastrophic outcome was avoided – avoided by the very fact that we announced that we were putting a vehicle into the field. People like to look back at these things and not understand just how difficult a situation car dealerships were actually facing back in February.
    JOURNALIST: So, what are your thoughts on this email that’s cropped up that the Liberals claim proves the connection?
    TREASURER: Well, there’s clearly a fake email, because as the Prime Minister indicated last night, there has been a comprehensive search for this email. Mr Turnbull says he has sighted this email. Well, where did he sight it? Who showed it to him? Where did it come from? If he’s sighted it, his responsibility is to explain how he did that.
    JOURNALIST: Are you suggesting that they were at all behind the manufacture of this email?
    TREASURER: Well, senior journalists today have written that Mr Turnbull has sighted this fake email, so Mr Turnbull ought to explain where, how and why.
    JOURNALIST: Regardless of the outcome of Mr Grant, at any time had Treasury officials asked to seek finance for him at a meeting with a major finance company?
    TREASURER: Treasury would have taken any decisions they took in discussions with major finance companies on the merit of the case they discussed with Mr Grant. There was never from my point of view any indication of how they should proceed. They were handling the matter. It’s a commercial matter, and the Treasury was handling difficult commercial circumstances involving car dealers right throughout the country. And the fact is that Mr Grant didn’t secure finance – that’s made clear in the emails – and he apparently is still with an existing financier. But these matters were handled by the department as they should be. Entirely appropriate.
    JOURNALIST: Why did Treasury admit Mr Grant wasn’t your average constituent?
    TREASURER: Well, you’d have to ask Mr Grech that. Mr Grant, I think, from the emails, appears to be a particularly persistent sort of person.
    JOURNALIST: So, you’ve said that you weren’t aware of the outcome, but will you admit that you were kept up to date personally with the fact that…
    TREASURER: …can I just go back to the emails. The emails that are there span a week basically, through to the end of February. The fact that there is no more email traffic actually indicates what I’ve just indicated to you today. I handled the matter correctly. I put it in the hands of my department. It was acted on, but handled appropriately by the department in the departmental framework. And as people are alleging that there was some sort of special relationship and so on, where’s the rest of the email traffic? Thank you.

    ends
    **********************************************************************
    Please Note: The information contained in this e-mail message
    and any attached files may be confidential information and
    may also be the subject of legal professional privilege. If you are
    not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this
    e-mail is unauthorised. If you have received this e-mail by error
    please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all
    copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
    **********************************************************************

28. JV @ 3413

    Yeh.

    The KathnKims and the Aspirational Voters are going to be wondering what hit them.

    Many forestry KathnKims in North America are basically salvage harvesting their futures now. Many Murray Darling Basin irrigator KathnKims are being forced off their farms now.

    ‘Why didn’t somebody do something?’ the KathnKims of the future will be asking themselves.

29. [Read Swan’s transcript.]

    I saw Swan’s transcript where he alluded to the emails only being sent to his fax because poor old Grech hit “reply all”.

    But I also saw the email from Thomas to Grech telling him that he was going to send these emails to Swan’s fax. Unless I misunderstood and he was just clarifying to Grech that Grech was sending these emails Swan’s fax.

30. That’s an unexpected response Boerwar. I had thought it was too large.

    Given that equivalent yields for barley were 15.7 bushels (753.6lbs) and wheat was 11.9 bushels (714.0 lb) (according to studies by Harry Kitsikopoulos), I’d thought that 2016.0 lbs of hay was a big number.

    Of course (as you imply), that ignores the straw gathered from the grain harvests which was around 138.5lb/bu for wheat and 64.4lb/bu for barley (from the same source).

    That’d give 1764.68lb of vegetable matter for barley and 2362.15 for wheat.

    Which sort of contradicts what I was thinking (I hadn’t done the sums before) when compared to the 2016lbs for hay.

    As to your other points:

    1. The season – there were some terrible bad runs in those days.
    Yeah – averages hide the reality.

    2. Unlike grain, whether you have any data that would allow like-to-like measures. You might be able to do some implied work using straw as substitute (because you will probably have more accurate measures of grain yields.
    Yep, but “meadow” was a separate holding. ‘Twas meadow year in, year out.

    3. The particular meadow – soil types were much more important in those days because hay yields were not being boosted by fertilizers.
    Absolutely, but my understanding is that meadow was only meadow if it was on good soil and near water. They were boosted by the best fertilizer at the time: manure.

    4. What had been done on the paddock in previous seasons (see 3).
    Meadow wasn’t part of the rotation (2 or 3 field system) – like the crofts they got special
    treatment (fertilizer) to keep them going year-in, year-out.

    5. Bad luck – battles were bad for haypaddocks.
    Understatement! 😉

    6. What your neighbour was up to, particularly if he was strip farming.
    Not sure what you mean there. Neighbour as in next manor, or next villien? Apart from the demesne meadow, most meadow was “common” to the village.

    7. Pests. Chemicals were not big in those days.
    Yep.

    8. Aspect and the amount of sunlight would have been very important.
    Yep again. Any yields are dependant on locale.

    Of course, none of this will save Malcolm Turnbull’s hide! 😉

31. Milne’s take on Swan, whatever it’s worth (not much).

    http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25664466-5001030,00.html

32. [But despite the high-stakes, Mr Turnbull was forced to acknowledge he could not vouch for the email’s authenticity.

    “I don’t have a copy of the email,” Mr Turnbull said]

    So why on 10 June did Turnbull ask Rudd 6 questions about Grant and OzCar in QT? Was he just curious???

33. 3428

    Nice modern metric measurements there.

34. Couple good tweets for Bernard Keane:

    [Speers may thinks it’s odd that a minister ‘s office favours gov’t constituents over Oppn ones, when it’s normal.
    10:28 PM Jun 18th from TweetDeck in reply to thewetmale

    Public servants must be watching the OzCar hearings and wondering what the fuss is all about.]
    http://twitter.com/BernardKeane

    Yep hold the front page! “Public Servant thinks he better follow up thouroughly on an enquiry from the Minister’s Office”.

35. So who is on…

    Meet the Press
    Sunday
    Insiders

    ???????????????

36. [Public servants must be watching the OzCar hearings and wondering what the fuss is all about.]

    Couldn’t agree more. Rudd or Swan making a representation on behalf of a constituent is par for the course. I’m really not sure what all the fuss is about.

37. I accept the pecuniary interests register as a plausible basis for knowledge of some relationship between Grant and Rudd. Knowledge that they are/were “friends” and “neighbours” probably doesn’t emerge from the register, but then maybe it’s no secret in Brisbane. Whatever.

    But given the acknowledged interest of Swan in all of this, someone has been really lucky with their guess. Or knew half the story and was trying to stir trouble. I do find it hard to believe that the author of the alleged email was just rolling the dice on the basis of a line in a pecuniary interests register.

    IMO there are more plausible scenarios than Liberal “chancers”.

38. So do we know who’s on…

    Meet the Press
    Sunday
    Insiders

    ???????

39. I’m sorry to dump the whole transcript here, but I’m getting very annoyed at Glen simply repeating things over and over which are demonstrably false. Swan dealt very thoroughly with all the points Glen has raised. He made no attempt to get favourable treatment for Grant, and he did not mislead Parliament about that. He simply passed Grant’s request onto the DLO, Andrew Thomas, who then dealt with Grech at OzCar. It may well be that since both Thomas and Grech knew that Grant was a friend of Rudd’s and (they assumed, wrongly) of Swan’s, they gave his case more immediate attention than they might otherwise have done. But that can only be held against Swan if it can be shown that he *told* them to do so, and there is no evidence that he did.

40. But even if they were only being sent to the Treasurer because Grech click “reply all” that means Thomas was cc’ing Swan in anyway. And we already know he was cc’ing Ken Henry for whatever reason.

    So it’s hard to doubt Swan had decided to be kept in the loop and wasn’t forced too by Grech, but personally, I don’t think the fax stuff is that important anyway.

41. [Mr Turnbull now says he has been relying on Mr Lewis’s reports for his resignation calls on Mr Rudd and Mr Swan. He denied anyone in the Opposition wrote the email or sent it to Mr Lewis.]

    What was he relying on when on 10 June he asked this:
    [Mr TURNBULL (2.10 pm)—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the standards of ministerial ethics and I note that the Prime Minister’s register of interests states that he has been given a free car complete with registration, insurance and RACQ membership by a Mr John Grant of John Grant Motors. Has the Prime Minister, his office or anyone on his behalf made representations on behalf of Ipswich Central Motors, John Grant Motors or any other car dealership owned by or associated with John Grant to OzCar, the taxpayer funded special purpose vehicle managed by the Treasury and set up to provide finance to car dealers?]

    or this?
    [Mr TURNBULL (2.24 pm)—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement made in estimates several hours ago that the Prime Minister’s office had made one representation on behalf of a car dealer to the Treasury official managing OzCar, the special purpose vehicle funded by the taxpayer to provide finance to car dealers. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that in that Senate estimates hearing it was put to the Treasury official that the company in respect of which the Prime Minister’s office made the representation was a company associated with Mr John Grant, the gentleman who provides the Prime Minister with a free car. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that 45 minutes ago he was expressly asked in a news conference whether his office had made a representation on behalf of a company controlled by Mr John Grant. Prime Minister, what do you have to hide? Why don’t you just tell us what representation you have made?]

    or this?
    [Mr TURNBULL (2.33 pm)—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?]

    or this?
    [Mr TURNBULL (2.41 pm)—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer to his previous answer in which he confirmed that he had made representations to OzCar on behalf of Mr John Grant, a car dealer seeking finance from that taxpayer special purpose vehicle. I ask the Treasurer: were there any discussions or communications between the office of the Treasurer and the office of the Prime Minister?]

    or this?
    [Mr TURNBULL (2.53 pm)—My question is again to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his answer to my previous question concerning representations made to OzCar by his office. In his answer he stated that his office had received hundreds of representations which had been forwarded to OzCar. The evidence before estimates today by one of his own officials is that Oz-Car has received one representation for one dealership from the Prime Minister’s office and for only two dealerships from the Treasurer’s office, one of which we know was on behalf of Mr Grant. Which account is true? Was it hundreds or was it two?]

    this came up in estimates – what are we to think that the LIbs just plucked Grant’s name from thin air? Or that Turnbull went full bore on the issue in QT because he had nothing, but was just interested in knowing what Rudd knew?

    Turnbull’s a lawyer, he wouldn’t ask a question unless he (thought) he knew twhat the asnswer is.

42. Milne’s second article is only worth reading because he publishes a couple of other emails.

    Up to you whether you think this constitutes the same treatment as everyone else.

    [“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.”]

    [On February 20, Grech emails Andrew Thomas: “Andrew, I have spoken with John Grant and given him a good run down of where things are at. I told him that I will arrange for Capital Finance to get in touch with him. I also flagged a fall back – but I will not set that out here. Suffice to say it involved Ford Credit.”]

43. Swan made the point that all ministers get great wads of routine faxes sent to them at home, where they rarely are, and these faxes rarely get read. Even backbenchers get swamped with faxes, since everyone copies everything to everyone else to cover their arses. It’s very wasteful.

44. The Finnigans
    [Mr Turnbull now says he has been relying on Mr Lewis’s reports for his resignation calls on Mr Rudd and Mr Swan.]
    There were no Lewis reports before yesterday afternoon I thought.
    So, if Turnbull referred to documentary evidence when speaking to Charlton at the ball on Wenesday, what was he referring to?
    And where did Abetz get Lewis’s report ahead of publication?

45. [Couldn’t agree more. Rudd or Swan making a representation on behalf of a constituent is par for the course. I’m really not sure what all the fuss is about.]

    Yep, get back to me when someone’s comes up with Minister puts pressure on public servant to bend rules for mate.

    That’s when it’s time to start crying corruption.

46. Oz regardless of the fake email Swan’s cred is destroyed IMHO…

    Some of these emails from his office do not cooberate with his defence…

47. flaneur

    Thanks. Very interesting and glad to stand corrected on various points – I did not know that pastures were fertilized, except in places like Holland, where human mud scoopers scraped canal bottoms (I know) and then spread the muck across the the pastures. Another thing you might want to think about is the actuall food quality of the hay. I have seen some terrible hay in Australia – it would keep goats going but would actually cause a drop in production if fed to dairy cows. In Europe the mixture of grasses and herbs would be very important there, I would think. Another, minor point is that some of the meadows had herb mixes which caused milk to taint, if I recall correctly. So, hay for purpose might be a critical thing.

    Water meadows were the best, I think – good alluvial soil, plenty of moisture, if it wasn’t actually flooding.

    Given the importance of transhumance in a lot of Europe you might want to be thinking about the mountain meadows – the buildings I have seen are clearly intended for holding both stock and hay.

    Also, lol, none of this will help Turnbull.

48. Glen: I’d guess a conservative will be the guest on INSIDERS, as Tanner appeared last week, and they tend to alternate between Labor and Liberal.
    As Barry Cassidy hates Rudd, I’d expect a nasty anti-ALP episode tomorrow.

49. [Swan made the point that all ministers get great wads of routine faxes sent to them at home, where they rarely are, and these faxes rarely get read. Even backbenchers get swamped with faxes, since everyone copies everything to everyone else to cover their arses. It’s very wasteful.]

    And anything of import has a “Noted” or “Approved” for the Minister to sign – as was the case with Downer’s brief on AWA (the “I want to know about this” line).

50. So now the Federal Opposition has adopted the Queensland LNP tactics of asking questions in parliament based on News Ltd reports. Not a smart move I would suggest.

Comments are closed.