Recently, while in China, Tony Abbott praised the way that Asian countries had lifted living standards, announcing: “It’s happened because governments have allowed individuals and families to take more control of their own futures.”
Mm, some may argue that the “one child policy” may have helped lift the living standards, but Abbott is the first to suggest that policies like China has allows individuals and families the chance to take greater control of their own futures. Still, I guess anyone who can suggest with a straight face that losing one’s job is “liberating” may be on a different wave length to most of us.
And as for his effusive praise of O’Farrell for standing down, well…
Certain things strike me as unarguable:
1. Gifts over a certain amount are meant to be declared. This is to stop the potential for bribery. If a gift is not declared, it is reasonable to treat it in the same way that you would treat a bribe. Just as if you refuse to take a breath test, it doesn’t mean that you are over the limit, but it’s reasonable that you be treated as though you were.
2. In the case of undeclared gifts, of course, it’s reasonable to presume that occasionally one will overlook the odd gift and if it’s brought to their attention, then they have the chance to declare it.
3. If after being asked about it, the person makes several assertions that not only did they not receive it, if they had then they would certainly remember it, one loses the defence of this was an oversight.
4. If one is going somewhere to be formally questioned about a particular matter, any sensible person would check their facts before they make bold assertions. One can hardly blame the questions for the fact that one hasn’t studied for the exam. Neither can one argue that one would have remembered what one couldn’t remember, if only one knew that there was already evidence to show a connection to what one was being asked about.
Still, one can understand that Bazza stood down – not because he’d dishonestly misled the commission – but because he honestly couldn’t remember what he insisted he would remember if it actually happened. And according to some, would have definitely remembered if he’d known that ICAC was to be given evidence that it definitely happened.
Oh, I need to stop. I’m getting confused between “Rake” and 7:30.
