Non-action man Crikey has long watched, agog as Australia’s press not only credited Scott Morrison’s announcements as though they were action, but gave the prime minister credit for things he’d not even announced.
In February Morrison saying Australia would “preferably” reach zero net emissions by 2050 was taken as evidence that Morrison was shifting to “a more ambitious climate change target”. In April his announcement that he would not allow his climate policy to be “dictated by the inner cities” was interpreted as a continued “inching” or “shifting” towards zero emissions.
Now, to their credit, most outlets are at least correctly identifying that Morrison’s G7 speech doesn’t actually contain anything of the sort — indeed, we note the irony that after all the credit Morrison has received for his preferences and intentions, he argues that “ambition alone won’t solve the problem of actually reducing emissions”.
I’ll see you in courtship When Shakespeare wrote that “the course of true love never did run smooth” he could not have foreseen the current stand-off in the Federal Court in Sydney.
The Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case, a multimillion-dollar operation involving several highly priced members of the Sydney and Melbourne bar, was brought to a screeching halt this morning by a few tricky questions about the personal relationship between the former soldier and a member of his legal team. Justice Bromwich asked for more details about an important affidavit sworn by solicitor Monica Allen, with whom Roberts-Smith had reportedly been in a relationship.
It all revolves around a separate legal proceedings Roberts-Smith has taken against his former wife, Emma Roberts. She had been expected to give evidence for her former husband but has switched sides and is giving evidence for the media outlets. The problem is that an affidavit about this matter has been witnessed and sworn by Allen.
Bromwich said this morning that he had found this out from media reports and was “uncomfortable with this situation”.
Mediscare 2.0 After Labor’s relative lack of cut-through on Coalition assaults on worker protections last year, it’s nice to know federal ALP still has at least one issue it feels confident attacking the government on.
Though experts vary on just how much of an attack the Liberals’ Medicare changes actually represents, Labor’s going hard. Anthony Albanese, knowing how much we like the old stuff, reposted a picture of himself fighting to oppose the closure of his local Medicare office 20 years ago (perhaps not the best example, given the last Labor government’s initiative of “simplifying” human services locations by closing Medicare offices and rolling them in with Centrelink offices).
Meanwhile Bill Shorten, always happy to roll out his greatest hit, reposted the fake Medicare card that typified the original “Mediscare” campaign, and which got him so close to Malcolm Turnbull in 2016.
Return of the hack What is it with Labor hacks and reality TV? The announcement of the contestant list for the coming Brains v Brawn Survivor introduces us to “George, a political operative”.
“You’ve got to be willing to pull people’s strings,” he says. “As a faceless man in the Labor Party, that’s what I’ll be doing.”
And I know what you’re thinking: “Oooh, who’s that guy? I get the firm impression he didn’t come on this show to make friends, but to be No. 1…”
But of course this isn’t the first Labor hack to grace the world of reality TV. Alisha Aitken-Radbury worked in Bill Shorten’s media team and as an events director for NSW Labor as well as appearing on The Bachelor and Bachelor in Paradise.
Life of O’Brien We sense a theme here. Just as Victoria’s Liberals spent Australia’s worst experience of COVID-19 calling Premier Dan Andrews “lurch” rather than raising legitimate questions about the government’s management of the crisis, yesterday they decided to wink at conspiracy theories about how Andrews came to injure his back rather than raising legitimate questions of when we can actually expect him to return.
The legitimising of the eminently shareable (and frequently debunked) theory that Andrews was either blackout drunk at billionaire Lindsay Fox’s house — or was beaten up there — forced Ambulance Victoria to issue a statement clarifying certain details of its involvement. Today it was revealed that Opposition Leader Michael O’Brien hadn’t even read the statement. Which slightly goes against the Liberals’ hands up “Hey man, just asking questions” response to the criticism they’ve received over spreading conspiracy theories.
Given Justice Bromwich is presiding over the defamation trial (is there a jury?) is it appropriate or proper he is informing himself via media reports? This on the day it is reported in the Courier Mail the jury has been dismissed in the Michelle Jenner perjury trial after a juror is alleged to have consulted the internet for the definition of “intention”.
He is not presiding over the defamation trial – this is a separate matter involving an argument over the evidence of BRS’s former wife, Emma Roberts. Justice Besanko is the judge in the defamation matter and there is no jury.
I’m sure he knows the rules. There is no jury in the trial, according to reports. It will be a judge only decision.
Seemed to be reasonable to me seeing that the relationship had not been declared. Nothing to see here apparently, evidence would suggest otherwise.
But he didn’t inform himself from the internet, did he. He saw published information that suggested the personal involvement of the deponent with the plaintiff. He then questioned the deponent directly about her situation with respect to the plaintiff. He made his considerations on the basis of her direct testimony in court.
Had just spent some time checking out the matter that Billygus questions (above).
There are currently two cases before the courts involving Ben Roberts-Smith. One is the defamation action he has brought against media outlets and that is being heard by Justice Besanko, sitting alone.
The second case is an action brought by Roberts-Smith against his former wife Emma Roberts and it is being heard before Justice Bromwich. Originally Emma Roberts was expected to give evidence in support of Roberts-Smith in the defamation action. But now she is to give evidence for the media companies. The basis of the second case is a complaint that Emma Roberts had illegitimate access to his emails. However the affidavit alleging this access was witnessed and sworn by a woman lawyer with whom Roberts-Smith is being said to be in a “personal relationship”.
Justice Bromwich has questioned whether this personal relationship made the woman lawyer a suitable deponent. And this has had the consequence of bringing both cases to “screeching halts”.
A tip that may be worth following up about Ben Roberts-Smith (R-S).
R-S is clearly articulate and bright enough to study for an MBA (admittedly a low bar academically). His father was a well-off judge. He went to Hale School (the most prestigious in WA). He is physically very fit and strong. All this is on the public record, or obvious from his public performance. In short like Christian Porter he belongs to the class of [white male] people who consider themselves “entitled”.
So why did he join the army as a low level “grunt” rather than as an officer cadet as people of that class would normally do? That is, why not through ADFA, for which on the face of it he was well qualified? Even after entering the army as a grunt, he quickly gained selection to join SAS (which is quite selective) and got promoted to the still lowly level of Corporal.
Was there some scandal back in Perth from which he escaped into Australia’s equivalent of the “foreign legion”? Given his subsequent career, I’d guess it was a drunken fight rather than a failed love affair, but Crikey might find it interesting to investigate.