To put it bluntly. Never ever believe what a politician says! and to be especially careful when a politician says that they are telling the truth.

I think you are far too generous in your opinion of politicians. The only sensible way to look at it is that the intention was to lie all along.

In your world, one can never prove a lie, so there are no lies. That's carte Blanche to promise anything and everything and then say oh we didn't know the state of the books after the election. Heard that one before?

I'm comfortable with the assumption it's pre-meditated. As Mr Garret said, 'We'll just change it all when we get in'. Never a more honest word spoken.

'These issues call for thoughtful examination by journalists and opinion writers'

Why? Most of the public want simple heros and villains. You even state it'd be unsatisfactorily proven one way or the other anyway. The public understands the concept, they don't need to hash over the pros and cons of political survival of minority governments.

'It has long been a convention of the Westminster system that a minister who lies to the representatives of the public in the House must resign.'

Not since Ros' whiteboard. I can't remember anyone resigning recently. That's old hat man, like walking when you're out in cricket.

I have noticed the constant assertion that spin is not lying, and ridiculous assertions about the future do not constitute lying. The majority of people value honesty, and do not countenance this smart alec, dishonest, approach.

Max wants us to be legalistic, and exonerate Julia on the technical ground that the statement was about the future, and she cannot be held to account for lying, when technically what she did was break a promise.

Most people would consider that making the statement was lying about her intention when she made no appropriate qualification such as:
“unless the only way I am able to seize and cling to power is to ditch this promise, so that I am able to thwart the will of the electorate, who obviously did not vote me in, and recruit the backing of turncoats who will go against the will of the people who voted them in, in order to back me.”

No one could reasonably be expected to assess her statement on the basis that she had such a treacherous capacity, and if they had been so informed, they would not have voted for Labor.

No one proved that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there was reasonable evidence that they were there, but no one pointed out that the “beyond reasonable doubt” test had not been passed, in relation to John Howard, before calling him a liar.

Why should the test be applied to Julia?

Reasonable people are satisfied that she is a liar, Max, and your playing with words will not convince them otherwise.

Only an academic, & probably only a lefty academic at that, could possibly claim that Julia is not a liar.

Tell me Max, do you actually believe she is not lying when she has the hide to claim that "only the big polluters will pay the carbon dioxide tax"? It would be nice to get a handle on how far you are prepared to go with this justification effort.

People like Max are going to feel quite aggrieved when the general public cries enough, & refuses to see our taxes wasted on these people, & the institutions that breed them.

Too much more of this garbage mate, & it won't be too long coming either.

The author is right that failing to keep a promise does not necessarily constitute lying. But there is no significant change in circumstances or information to explain a change of mind on the part of the government. Given the political expediency of the pre-election promise not to tax carbon, and the speed with which the government changed its mind on regaining office, the most plausible and straightforward explanation is that it intended to break its promise – in other words, it lied.

John Howard was accused of lying when he proposed the GST after saying he would never introduce one. The difference between the two – and it’s a huge one – is that Howard announced his change of heart before an election and took the GST to the electorate. If this government had a genuine change of heart on the carbon tax it should do the same. That it will not do so is a further sign of its lack of integrity, and is another reason why it should not be given the benefit of the doubt on whether it lied.

Incidentally I support a price on carbon, though I have some reservations about the government's model.

WOW, fascinating article & comments everybody.

"Repeat the lie until it becomes the truth" Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

Loony Left wing politics is the art of telling deliberate premeditated lies & deluding yourself into thinking it is OK, as in the ends justify the means.

Always has been, always will be.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12537#216719

Hasbeen, i am with you on this one, if this guy is the best a university law & ethics school can produce then we have the answer as too what is wrong with the land of OZ.

How many impressionable young minds has this evil thing infected in his career?

How many bongs did he have to suck on before coming out with this drivel?

Denial is not a river in Egypt.