The Shorter Oxford defines a lie as 'a false statement made with intent to deceive'.

The bit “intent to deceive” is important. So, by this definition, would you argue that, if someone has convinced themselves that what they are saying is correct, they are not lying?

I suspect Craig Thompson has convinced himself he has done nothing wrong by stealing from the Health Services Union. Does that mean he is not lying?

I suspect Julia Gillard has convinced herself she did nothing wrong in participating in fraud and apparently receiving cash and other benefits from the AWU. Does that mean she is not lying?

[Oh, by the way, is it acceptable to use “she” in referring to the PM? I notice that she objects to Tony Abbott referring to her as “she” in Parliament, but she, herself, refers to him as he. What a are the new rules for Political Correctness in Australia? Will they be made “LAW” under this current Green-Labor government?

When PM Paul Keating misled the people about his LAW, (he walked away from it after the election) was he lying? When Julia Gillard calls Tony "he" is that lying, or is she just hypocritical, misleading cunning, tricky and deceptive?]

Well, they are not lies, just non-core promises, like say, a never ever GST?
Q: How can we tell if politicians are lying?
A: Their lips move?
Q: what would it indicate, if on leaving, say Canberra, you saw several politicians, buried up to their necks in sand?
A; A very severe shortage of sand?
On a more serious note, politicians have to be free to change their minds.
Julia Gillard, claimed before the election, [which all the polls had her winning by a handsome margin,] that no govt she led would introduce a carbon tax.
Her chances of winning were destroyed by a leaking, Julia hating, traitor, who simply didn't give a flying French Frankfurt, if he/she destroyed a once great party in the process!
So, when the election was over and her party numbers decimated, she was left with no other choice, but to adopt green policies, as the price of alliance; and or, govt?
Sadly, the days of political loyalty and or, sorry no comment, are behind us, as it seems, is integrity in political leaders?
That said, what truly decent person, would want to enter politics today, and endure the endless media microscope; or your life being dredged through, for some personal peccadilloes, from your juvenile past, that might or might not, somehow advantage your, digging the dirt, political opponents?
As for Thomson?
His case, if there is one, remains unheard!
And as far as I know, our law still turns on a presumption of innocence, unless your part of the kangaroo court mob, ready willing and able to dig or sling mud, or something a good deal smellier, in the hope some of it will stick!
If that is the case? Then beware the fan!
Rhrosty

Peter,

That's an intriguing thought, Peter, and my answer is that adult, rational person cannot persuade themselves that they have done nothing wrong when indeed they have done something wrong. If they say that, they are thinking of how they would defend themselves in court, or in argument. If the evidence is against you, and you know it is, saying that you have done nothing wrong is very close to a lie, though you may not be intending to deceive others so much as boosting your own self-confidence.

A correction: Juliar didn't lie!

What she said is: "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" and indeed there is no carbon tax.

That the new tax is called "carbon" doesn't mean that it is indeed a tax on carbon.

Firstly, the current tax is claimed to be a tax on the production of carbon dioxide (CO2), not carbon.
Secondly, it does not tax all producers of CO2, only some.
Thirdly, it is not even a tax since it produces a negative revenue.
Fourthly, she doesn't lead the government - it's her ego which does.

All it comes down to, is a usual socialist exercise to take money from some, give it to others [as bribe] and on the way provide paper-shuffling jobs to as many friends as possible.

So no promise is broken!

Perhaps part of the problem is that telling the truth can get you into so much trouble. It's so much easier to either say nothing or - if you work in Indigenous Affairs - repeat the dominant narrative, word for word, regardless of how ridiculous or untrue it may be.

After all, Andrew Bolt said just what many, many Indigenous people have been saying for years - that people can call themselves whatever they like, but they shouldn't necessarily make money out of it - and look what happened to him.

Best wishes, Don :)

Joe lane
Adelaide

Excellent article. Thanks, Don.

The distinction is a vital one – often not made with enough care – between (a) aspirational commitments, (b) specific promises which turn out impossible to deliver because of external factors, (c) promises abandoned carelessly and (d) blatant lies.

Just on this, Don: “I've met a couple of real liars in my time, but neither of them was a politician.”

Do you mean “met personally” or “encountered at close quarters”? Because there do seem to be “real liars” in public life whose lies have been recorded and scrutinised carefully.

John Howard and several of his ministers made assertions during the 2001 election campaign about asylum seekers throwing children into the ocean which they knew were false.

Indeed, Mr Howard was labelled “the lying rodent” by a senator from his own side of politics.

More recently, the current Liberal leader has made statements he knew were false, including this one satirised here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvYzLIywCiA

Overseas, Mitt Romney has been called repeatedly by observers for deliberate falsehoods. Steve Benen at Rachel Maddow’s website endeavoured to document them all. His list totalled 917 by election day.

Is this a problem endemic in Conservative political parties? It would be interesting for you to explore if this is so, Don. And why.

It seems rife in Conservative media organisations also, notably Australia's Murdoch news outlets.

That blatant lies are actually quite effective in Australia may perhaps be illustrated by Loudmouth’s comments, above:

“Andrew Bolt said just what many, many Indigenous people have been saying for years - that people can call themselves whatever they like, but they shouldn't necessarily make money out of it - and look what happened to him.”

No, this is not true. Justice Bromberg made it clear that the law protects any genuinely held opinion, however obnoxious or offensive it may be to others.

But the law does not protect malicious fabrication. Andrew Bolt concocted at least 19 blatant damaging lies about specific individual Aboriginal people. That was why he lost the recent court case. Not for expressing his views on non-Aboriginal people rorting Indigenous funding.

This is a totally irrelevant discussion.

We've all switched off from the spin.

We are sick of it.

Let's just have an election and let the people decide who they think are the liars.

We all know what the result of an election will be... regardless of who leads who. The polls still show the Liberals in landslide winning position ... regardless of all the left leaning media spin.

@ Alan Austin

<<But the law does not protect malicious fabrication. Andrew Bolt concocted at least 19 blatant damaging lies about specific individual Aboriginal people. That was why he lost the recent court case. Not for expressing his views on non-Aboriginal people rorting Indigenous funding>>

I don’t know whether it’s a measure of your insensitivity or a measure of how out of touch you are. But considering recent events --outlined in the below link-- one would have thought you might have had the grace to refrain from parading your hobby horse on a thread by this author, at this time.

“Aitkin sued over alleged slur
Former University of Canberra vice-chancellor and former chairman of the National Capital Authority Don Aitkin is being sued for $6 million for alleged racial discrimination.”
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/aitkin-sued-over-alleged-slur-20121110-295ip.html

Hello again,

@imajulianutter:

Hi Keith. Just regarding this: “We all know what the result of an election will be …”

How do we all know? Opinion polls? Have you seen the latest from Essential and Newspoll, Keith? They show an election now would go to the Coalition. They also show the trend moving towards Labor.

I guess you are aware that almost all governments re-elected in recent history were well behind in the polls one year before the election. No?

The US illustrates this pretty well. Obama was clearly very unpopular one year before the latest elections. And he had a serious downwards trajectory then, as shown here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10254097

The Australian Government is also behind, though only marginally. But it has a definite upwards trajectory.

The question is why? And Don’s article we are discussing here has, I suspect, one of the answers.

Electors can differentiate between (a) aspirational commitments unfulfilled, (b) specific promises which turn out impossible to deliver because of external factors, (c) promises abandoned carelessly and (d) blatant lies.

And voters are rejecting the blatant liars. Both in the US and in Australia.

@SPQR: Pretty sure Don Aitkin has nothing at all to worry about from that lawsuit, if it proceeds.

Are you familiar with the legislation, SP?

Have you read the judgment in the Bolt matter?

This may be helpful, perhaps:
http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/one-year-on-how-to-twist-and-shout-down-a-legal-judgment/402/

Happy to discuss this further, SP.

Cheers, AA

Hi Alan,

<<This may be helpful, perhaps: [then Alan Austin links to an article by himself] >>

Woody Allen is famously said to have quipped:

“I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member”

Well, in a similar vein, I would not want to take too seriously any newspaper that featured Alan Austin as its “guest Author”.

A more informative comment on the case and its consequences might be found in today’s SundayTelegraph by David Penberthy.

Quote:
“Bolt's prosecution under the Racial Discrimination Act was a green light for any aggrieved group to try its luck in the courts to prevent other citizens from speaking their minds.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/knee-jerk-reaction-proves-youre-a-jerk/story-e6frezz0-1226518725036

We’ll have that again:

“Bolt's prosecution under the Racial Discrimination Act was a green light for any aggrieved group to try its luck in the courts to prevent other citizens from speaking their minds.”

Yes, indeed, we are beginning to see the consequences of that “green light”.

Hi again SPQR,

Thanks for responding. Thought you might.

Yes, I cop the authorship right jab on the chin. Fair enough.

Relevant questions, however, are these:

1. What does the RDA actually allow and disallow regarding racist commentary?

2. What did Andrew Bolt actually say that upset those Aborigines?

3. Which part of the RDA did Justice Bromberg find Andrew had violated, and why?

4. How could Andrew have made his point without incurring the label ‘racist’ in international jurisprudence forever?

5. Why did the Herald Sun not appeal – as they warned the judge throughout the proceedings that they would – when the judgment went against them?

6. How is it that so many other commentators like at http://theblacksteamtrain.blogspot.com.au/ have castigated pale-skinned fauxborigines so scathingly without penalty?

7. And why is Don Aitkin home free?

To answer these questions I would have preferred to have linked to all the other sources, SP. No, really I would.

There are indeed, several. But as it happens, that Global Mail piece is the only one I know of where all sources are linked in the one place. So you can follow the URLs with an open mind, even if you can’t bring yourself to read the actual article.

It comes down to this, SP:

If any aggrieved group tries its luck in the courts with a prosecution under the RDA to prevent other citizens from speaking their minds – who is not a malicious liar like Andrew Bolt – and succeeds without being slugged for costs, I will donate a thousand dollars to the charity of your choice, SPQR.

The legislation is clear, SP, as the article – er, I mean, as the URLs in the article – demonstrate.

We’ll have that again:

If any aggrieved group tries its luck in the courts with a prosecution under the RDA to prevent other citizens from speaking their minds – who is not a malicious liar like Andrew Bolt – and succeeds without being slugged for costs, I will donate a thousand dollars to the charity of your choice, SPQR.

Cheers, AA

Hi Alan,

Why is Don Aitken home free, you ask ? Well, most likely because he didn't say anything which was actionable, merely that a person purporting to be Aboriginal looked about as Aboriginal as he was. I've certainly thought something similar, and probably said it occasionally, about many Aboriginal people, including many relations, and friends, and children of friends, some of whom are doing very well out of it all.

Some people might take offence at such an observation ? Yes, and so ? It's not illegal merely to offend, thank Christ.

It's not easy for Aboriginal people being pale, I know. But some are - let's face it - more genuine than others. Some, no matter how pale they might be, have copped the slings and arrows of local, small-town racism, and/or poverty, and of discrimination all their lives, because of their name, etc., while others have - mirabile dictu ! - discovered in their mature years that they may have an part-Aborigine ancestor, maybe even a Princess - or maybe, after all, their great-grandad had "Australian Native" on some of his documents.

As did many, many 'pure'-whites from the late nineteenth century and into the twentieth - often they were members of the Australians Natives' Association, est. 1871, including many future Prime Ministers, i.e. they were not 'Pommy b@stards' lording it over the locals, but homegrown, native-born, white Australians.

But if some of their descendants want to dress up in rabbit-skin cloaks, that's their right. Whether they should be able to get paid their $1000 for some 'welcome to country', tax-free, is another matter. If that ever happens, that is.

Good luck, Don.

Joe

@ JohnBennetts: Correct. This issue will probably be an embarrassing memory after Christmas.

@imajulianutter: Foyle can speak for him or herself. Your question, however, seems to arise from the same confusion as cohenite’s.

Ms Gillard was not referring to the association as a slush fund. She was referring to one of the bank accounts later used by the association for allegedly dodgy deeds.

Understood correctly, Keith, there is no contradiction.

@cohenite: Re “Wilson and Blewitt could not have set up their bank accounts without reference to a legal entity which is why the association was crucial.”

Correct, Anthony. The association came first. The bank account referred to as a slush fund came later. They are not the same entity. We agree.

Re: “the association IS the slush fund by virtue of its ostensible 'real' purpose as admitted by the PM …”

No, not correct. The bank account was the slush fund, not the association.

Re: “the bank account is the mechanism by which the slush fund, the association, processes its revenue.”

No. Not quite. The bank account (or slush fund) is the mechanism by which the association processes its revenue.

Re: “The PM had to misrepresent the purpose before the commissioner would grant the registration”.

No, there was no misrepresentation. It only appears so to those who mistakenly believe the association was the slush fund.

Re: “I repeat she has admitted that.”

No, Anthony, the PM hasn’t admitted anything of the sort.

@Loudmouth: Re “Ms Gillard attended the auction at which a property was purchased with funds from the AWU Workplace Reform Association on whose inauguration … she had advised. She witnessed her boyfriend buying the house in the name of Ralph Blewett with funds from the Association ...”

Joe, I bought a house in 1992. My then girlfriend came to the auction. It was a big day.

Had I embezzled the money for the deposit, would I have told my girlfriend? What would I stand to gain by so doing?

Pretty sure Bruce Wilson answers your other questions in his ABC TV interview last Wednesday.

Cheers, AA