Straight from the Tony Abbott’s website, a transcript of a door stop on 08/09/11 .
—
QUESTION:
Craig Thomson’s wife is heavily pregnant. Will you offer him a pair so that he can be at the birth of his child?
TONY ABBOTT:
Look, we’ve made it crystal clear that only in the most extraordinary circumstances will pairs be offered for the carbon tax vote. This is by far the most important vote that the Australian parliament will take in the current term of parliament and the first duty of members of parliament is to be in the parliament when critical votes are taken.
—
It was a question that deserved a simple Yes answer. What Abbott delivered was political speak to cover an act that is the lowest of the lows. He of course went on to claim he was taken out of context. Sorry Mr Abbott, but where is the out of context in the above transcript.
Abbott claims to be a man that upholds family values. Not allowing a father to attend the birth of their child, shows while he may have family values, they are more say 1050CE values, not 2011CE values.
The issue of who is involved is redundant. The fact that Thompson’s wife is pregnant, shows that what, if anything that, happened in the past is just that for them. Further it is was and still is a private matter between them, not for I or anyone else to pass judgement on.
Labor granted Abbott a pair so he could attend anti-carbon tax rallies, showing that they can play by the rules. Yet, this form of petty politics is the norm for Mr No.
He said what he said. If he had meant yes, he would have said it. He is able to say “no” often enough. But then given the Turnbull and Crean had a written document for a pairing arrangement for a funeral, this really doesn’t come as any surprise, written or verbal his words can’t be trusted.
This man is going for the top job of the country, he should be setting an example. Showing us in part what kind of leader he would be. Here we have a leader that shows that Work/Life Balance is not important. I’d like to see a list of what other business in Australia could bar someone from being at this special moment.
Any business that attempted this would be dragged through the media as an outrage. This story as it unfolds is front page on Fairfax and ABC, below the fold on News LTD and no where to be seen on the front page of the Australian. I looked across the Australian and could not see any mention on the home page, nor the national section or even the politics sections as well about this statement. It is almost as of they have an agenda. Once again, the media builds its own case as to why we need an enquiry into media.
Labor will have run the numbers before introducing the legislation. And like the vote of no confidence that stopped Turnbull visiting the funeral of a close friend, Abbott will lose the vote on the Carbon Tax. So a man may well miss the birth of his child, just to fit the petty mind of Abbott.
— Update —
When asked directly on Twitter would Barry O’Farrell give a pair to a father to be.. his answer was “Yes”. Abbott’s answer still remains “Taken out of context”.
— Update 2 —
First thing this morning:
Pyne: “If they are foolish enough to schedule the vote at a time when Mr Thomson can’t be there, then that will be on their head.” So the Government should stop functioning for a whole month until an event that can occur within a 2 week period either side of a due date occurs? Further it isn’t just one bill, it is 23 of them that make up the Carbon Tax.
“We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. No request has come in,” Mr Abbott told Channel 9.
“Obviously the birth of a child is a very important event, but so is the carbon tax.” ( what like attending a protest or sleeping through the vote on the GFC! )
Abbott has backed down. Thompson will be offered a pair if the baby arrives during the Carbon Tax debate. The fact that his first/gut instinct was to block shows his character, even Barry O’Farrell could say yes when asked outright. Abbott was asked outright and couldn’t.
And in his own words later in the day…
“Finally, on the matter of Mr Craig Thomson, I just want to say that where he is concerned the most important thing is that he should give a complete explanation to the parliament about the misuse of the union credit card. Then the Prime Minister should give a complete explanation to the parliament of what she knew about the Labor Party’s loan or gift to Mr Thomson and what she thinks about the misuse of union credit cards, but if Mr Thomson wants brief absence from the parliament for the birth of his child obviously the Coalition will provide that.”
So where as yesterday it was a whole par about importance of the vote, today to get rid of the issue half a sentence.
( If text is too hard to comprehend, I recommend First Dog on the Moons Cartoon today which explains everything. )
Tags: Annoyances by Wolf
2 Comments »
