Skip to content

How to make something look like it is not


Here is an example of the content of The Australian.

Actually that was not right. At least spam is useful.

The Australian is really honesty trying to help overthrow a government. Innuendoes and out right misleading statements scatter its pages.  One such piece reported the goings on in Question Time on Tuesday 24th of May.

At least it reported to have reported it.

As usual the headline is all they care for. Get in big letters on on the page.

Wayne Swan credibility left looking shaky

I must say I did love the accompanying cartoon by Jon Kudelka too!

An illustration by Jon Kudelka. Source: The Australian

The cartoon is basically what the coalition attempted to raise in that Question Time. That is Wayne Swan should have seen the WA government’s increase in royalties.  And for the bulk of question time, that is where the opposition tried to throw their line.

Question Time started on the tail of another death in Afghanistan so there was a somber tone that resonated in the house when Joe Hockey first rose to his feet to deliver a somber toned question. His target was the treasurer. The treasurer shrugged it all off. In fact I think you could say the treasurer (and the ALP) saw this coming.

And they were prepared.

Joe attempted to get an answer from Swan question after question. His somber tone long discarded. His giant bellow filled the chamber as he expressed his outrage and demanded dates and letters and figures and numbers.

Dennis, in his piece describes the event as such.

WAYNE Swan’s veracity, truthfulness and effectiveness as Treasurer and a parliamentary player for the Gillard government is now a live political issue.

An arcane, complicated and arguable case for the federal Labor government in a dispute with the West Australian Liberal government over fines or lumpy iron ore and fiscal equalisation has turned into a debate about Swan’s capabilities.

Yesterday, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey put the Treasurer under pressure and got away with calling him a liar.

Totally untrue. While Hockey did call him a liar, he was made to withdraw after Hockey appeared that he was not going to do so. Abbott attempted to come to Hockey’s defence with debate. Which you can’t do. And the government made a point of order out of it. You could smell the censure call in the air.

Christopher Pyne found his new word for the term. It is obfuscate. At one stage he actually stood up to make a point of order that the government had made a point of order. Pure farce. He did take the opportunity to push the speaker’s button (poor Harry).

Abbott then got up to ask the only question to the prime minister. And in that one answer, the coalition lost its wind. The PM went through the time line that Hockey referred to in his series of questions as he jumped around from 2011 to 2010. From Aprils to Mays. From last weeks to last years. The PM laid it all out in one easy to follow timeline and Hockey’s attack died a horrible death. And that is where it should have ended. In fact Dennis in his piece describes it thus:

Julia Gillard, when she got the only Coalition question not directed to Swan, proved her parliamentary superiority and delivered an effective and logical answer to Abbott’s attack.

As I said. The matter should have ended there. But they had spent the bulk of question time on the issue and had nothing else. They persisted.

Pyne, after Hockey was made to withdraw like a bad child at a dinner table, stood to also offer his withdraw as he too was thinking about calling the treasurer a liar.

There was much guffawing. The coalition slapped each other on the back and Abbott wallowed in the laughter. But he wallowed a little too long.

As Abbott rose to recite the now common liturgy for a censure, the speaker had already given the call to another minister who had already started their question. Abbott looked like a dill. You see you can’t call for standing orders to be stopped when you have an MP standing and asking a question. He demanded the call but Harry smiled, winked, apologised for stealing his theatrical spotlight as he was a poor director of such events and Abbott had to sit and wait his turn.

The coalition had to wait and try and find the energy it would need to be rowdy.

When Abbott’s turn finally DID come, he obviously had to race against the clock. Now I am not sure until I see the transcript, but I think what I heard Abbott say as he tried to rattle off the obligatory liturgy was ‘he wants to move a motion that the ‘leader of the opposition ‘be not allowed to interrupt.’ Pretty sure it is supposed to be that the ‘leader of the government’.

Anyway. Abbott was just getting through with the bits he had to say when the government shut him down.

At one stage Albanese rose to object to Abbott making debate. He should tell us why parliament should be stopped and do it quickly.

Abbott was a little miffed. He obviously had this whole load of rhetoric to deliver with sprinklings of three word slogans. Forced by the ruling, Abbott had barely finished stating the  reason why when Albanese rose to say, right, we hear what he is asking, lets vote on it now as we dont need to hear him go on anymore.

This went through a series of divisions, and Abbott’s moment to pound a desktop was taken away from him.

Why do I say that? Well as was quoted in the piece by Shanahan, the PM had already answered the questions. There really was nothing left to see.

So if that was the case, the SOLE reason Abbott wanted to get air time was to make a TV grab. He must be filthy it was denied him.

The Australian ends its article the way it started. Like it was reporting a totally different story.

As Leader of the House, Anthony Albanese stepped in to fend off assaults but Swan was left looking uncertain as the parliament could not even resolve whether he was a liar or not.

Really Dennis? And this paragraph just under the one where you describe that the PM had already resolved the issue in her (your words buddy) ‘effective and logical answer to Abbott’s attack‘.

So I ask you Dennis. How can the attack that was effectively and logically answered still leave Swan looking uncertain.

Unless of course that is what you want people to think happened.


Meanwhile, the coalition are trying to avoid talking about the Climate Change report. In fact they have not yet asked one question about it since it’s release. Abbott it seems tried to tell his caucus to stay away from the climate change forums. Why? Because he felt that if MPs went, it would give the report credibility.

It didn’t quite work with 3 coalition MPs deciding to go and listen including Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt.

Next time Abbott wants his troops to not be seen, he should make them watch this.

A. Ghebranious 2011 (All Rights Reserved)

  1. Jennifer Baratta permalink

    Polticans are the same everywhere.

  2. Catching up permalink

    It is funny, you and I must have watched the same QT. That is the same conclusion I come to, and could explain that it was not taken up by the media in general. I can only thank the Independents for voting with the Opposition

    I noticed no similar attempt today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: