I don’t think that the charges of being ‘indebted to Burke’ and ‘morally compromised’ were mudslinging. I think that just passes for the usual political hyperbole, and it could have been quickly dismissed if Rudd had just played a straight bat and been candid. As I tried to demonstrate yesterday, Rudd’s lack of candour makes the whole affair look fishy, and gives the government ammunition.

Regarding Rudd’s childhood, we must bear in mind that, by accusing a man, now dead, of having once summarily evicted his family, Rudd himself was ‘throwing mud’. The man’s family aren’t happy and the newspapers have reported that they are considering legal action. It may be unpleasant for the government to investigate his claims, but it is equally unpleasant for Rudd to have made the accusation in the first place - especially when Rudd’s recollection of the event is disputed.

What is worse - to be accused of mis-remembering an episode from your childhood, or to be accused of evicting a penniless widow and her three kids shortly after she has buried her husband?? To my mind, the charge against Rudd is much the lighter, and the charge that he is making much the heavier - and ‘muddier’.

I agree Jeremy that it was perfectly legitimate for the Government to question his meetings with Burke. Rudd was unwise and showed poor judgment. That was not “mud-slinging” by the Government.

But Government Ministers including the Prime Minister went two steps further.
1. They charged Rudd with being “indebted to Burke” and “morally compromised” without any evidence to back it up.
2. They then disputed his childhood recollections on the detail and drew conclusions about his truthfulness and honesty.

These two cases involved mud-slinging in my opinion.

As to the Australian Nuclear Energy affair, I rather agree with today’s correspondent in the Australian, She says “Voters are smart enough to distinguish between muckraking about Rudd’s childhood experiences and the legitimate scrutiny of the Government’s relationship with an energy company that could benefit from government policy”.

Fred,

Thanks for replying to my question. I think you’re being a bit too cute, in saying that Rudd couldn’t be sure what others were discussing at the dinner table. As it turns out, Burke organised the dinner to allow invitees to meet Rudd. Rudd was the guest star!

You’re a public figure of some note, Fred - how many dinners have you attended, at the behest of someone else, only to discover that you were the guest of honour? None, I suspect.

As for Rudd’s lack of candour, bear in mind the above fact while reading Rudd’s initial explanation of his attendance, given in a press conference on 1 March:

‘And the third was a dinner at a restaurant to which Graham and been invited and I was invited by Graham in turn. At the restaurant in question, my recollection is about 20 or 30 people were there and there was a general discussion around the table.’

No mention of the fact that he was the main attraction - he only told the press that he was a guest of another invitee. That’s a bit of a gap, wouldn’t you agree?

When the journos asked him on 4 March whether or not he knew that he would be the guest of honour at the dinner arranged by Burke, he each time dodged the question and tried to shift the discussion by calling on the PM to call an election.

On 5 March Kerry O’Brien asked Rudd about a phone call between he and Burke, which hadn’t been mentioned by Rudd before. Also on 5 March, the ‘general discussion’ at the dinner was revealed to have involved an ‘extensive Q&A’ session.

And also on 5 March, Rudd said that a dinner had been organised by Brian Burke, Edwards was invited, and Edwards invited Rudd to ‘come along’. A bit strange - Burke organises a dinner, with Rudd as guest star, but leaves it to Edwards to say to Rudd only: ‘I’m going to a dinner, would you like to come along?’

The fact that the story has kept developing indicates, to me anyway, a lack of candour on Rudd’s part.

(BTW, all of the above information has come from Rudd’s statements to the press.)

As for your other comment, Fred, you are right - the association of the PM with a crim porn star is ridiculous! But the porn star hadn’t organised the dinner, had he (she)? Nor had he/she been involved in shenanigans in the WA parliament, I suppose? There is something of a difference, to my eyes.

David, thanks too for your reply.

Now, can one of this blog’s intellectual lights help me find the line between legitimate questioning of a public figure’s activities, and chucking mud at that public figure?? Maybe we can use an example - was Rudd’s questioning of the PM’s and the Treasurer’s and the Industry Minister’s meetings with Ron Walker, as a rep of Australian Nuclear Energy, legitimate - or was it ‘mudslinging’ too?

Jeremy, I think it is a bit unfair to say that Rudd showed “lack of candour” on his meetings and phone calls. What are you referring to here? In my view, guilt by association is the hardest thing in the world to refute and Rudd has been as transparent as he could be, given that he could not be sure what others were discussing at the dinner table. I agree that he has seemed very nervous when questioned about the incident. But that is understandable as the charge of being “indebted” to Burke was so serious that he risked extinction over it. Nervousness is not evidence of lack of candour.

Given the shenanigans that Burke has been involved in over in WA, and especially given Rudd’s lack of candour about his meetings and phone calls with Burke, don’t you think that this issue is a legitimate matter of public interest?

See? It isn’t mud slinging, the Liberals are doing us a favour.

They must realise that this tactic isn’t working when they have to publically defend it.