we are both busy (you with trying to implement climate and energy policy while the Federal Government supplies only ridicule and chaos, me with finishing a thesis) so I will keep this as brief as I can.
When I read what was reported in today’s Australian (1) ‘Jay says nay on right-wing remark‘ I was both confused and exasperated. I do not understand why you would wait a week before claiming “I think I might have been misheard. I think I said…”
I note there are lots of qualifiers there (and no outright denial) and it’s followed by a claim about background noise. On that, I would point out that you don’t flag any problem with my hearing everything else you said – all those quotes which reflect (well) on your actions since the September 2016 blackout..
I wonder if you worry, that this Clayton’s denial – the denial you have when you’re not having a denial – just feeds into the public narrative that politicians will try to wriggle out of things they said and that they later wish they hadn’t?
Clearly my prediction that this was going to be a ‘one-day wonder’ was misplaced. Oh well. I have no interest in continuing this non-controversy, because in the absence of a sound recording, everyone can just say ‘no evidence’ and it goes all Rashomon. The following questions seem obvious though-
- Why did you not claim that you had been ‘misheard’ at the time? Why is that, as Giles Parkinson pointed out in the Australian article today, neither you nor your office sought a retraction, correction or apology?
- Why did you call the remarks ‘lighthearted’ if they were simply indeed ‘rightwing sceptic’? That’s not particularly light-hearted, simply banal. By referring to your comments as light-hearted the day after, surely you were tacitly admitting what you had said?
- Why did the entire room burst into laughter and applause if all you did was describe Kenny as a right-wing sceptic?
- Why did you offer a mock apology ‘oh sorry’ at that time?
- Why did none of the other 100 people present at the book launch – fans of you and Mark Butler- come forward to challenge my account? (Of course, some may now do so, now that you have signalled that this is something you want to bury)
- Why did you call the event – and continue to call it – a private function? It was a book launch, or heaven’s sake! If you can’t get that right, why should anyone believe what you “think” you said?
Am I surprised by your behaviour? A little. But I am more disappointed – I thought you had more guts. But perhaps you have to save those guts for challenging the Federal government’s egregious inaction on climate and energy, and water. If that’s the case, well, then, so be it, and good luck.
(1) Of course, the Australian has a very long (27 year) history of reporting climate stories badly. Examples available on request. On the book launch beat up they managed not to credit their source and then mis-identify the location of the book launch (it was at the Publishers Hotel, not the University of Adelaide. Then, on Friday of last week its stablemate the Advertiser managed to get the day of the launch wrong. So maybe you were ‘misquoted’ (oh the irony) or were speaking with your tongue in your cheek?
Leave a Reply