The plot thickens
Chris Sheil posted this entirely reasonable argument yesterday:
Unless someone can come up with a reason as to why the hell Jack wouldn’t have wanted to reappoint Flinty faster than Dubya wanted to bomb Iraq, I just can’t credit this one to the Parrot, no matter how much he might’ve claimed it. The key, I guess, is that the parliament should demand the release of all official papers associated with the reappointment. Unless the goodies can turn up another candidate who was surprisingly, unaccountably, suddenly shoved aside for Flinty, it’s … just another juicy Sydney story, the likely bottom line to which is that the Parrot is a wanker.
However, an email from a “Liberal insider” that Crikey forwarded to its subscribers today suggests that Howard did indeed impose his personal view over the objections of the (admittedly useless) Minister responsible:
Dear Crikey
Some further information for you on the current imbroglio involving Jones, Flint and Howard. In 2000, the former Communications Minister, Richard Alston, recommended against the re-appointment of the ABA Chairman, Professor David Flint.
Alston never saw eye to eye with Flint and was keen to see him depart from the ABA at the expiry of his first term in 2000. Alston was over-ruled by the Prime Minister who insisted personally that David Flint be reappointed. Wonder why?
It is not known whether Alston was rolled over the appointment by the PM in Cabinet or his arm was twisted before the Cabinet meeting, however it was only as a result of the PM’s intervention that Flint was returned as ABA chairman for a second term.
The Alston Watcher
The plot thickens…
Update: John Howard has now basically admitted that he overruled Alston’s proposal to appoint ABA board member Michael Gordon-Smith.
I suspect Occam would suggest the best bet is that Laws told the truth about what Jones said to Laws, and Jones lied about what he had said to Howard. Q.E.D.
Next issue?
Golly. One wonders who Alston’s choice would have been? Probably someone who’s never seen a television before…
But godly, godly…
“John Howard has now basically admitted that he overruled Alston’s proposal”? You seem to have linked to a completely different article to whatever it was that supported your above comment. Aha! I see it now… you know the REAL truth behind the article, the ‘between the lines’ import. The tendrils of the vast right-wing conspiracy are clearly in your sights. And your imagination.