The Abbott and Costello defamation action against Random House turned on Wednesday into looking like the Liberal Party was using the public spectacle to "get back" at Labor for some of the stories in Bob Ellis' book. Evidence the evidence of Bill Hayden, acting like an old woman in one of those plays I did in English, saying how terrible and tawdry rumours are, and within the same few breaths, stating other rumours that were largely unknown to the public. Peter Costello and John Abbott may plea innocence at the media spectacle the court case has created (very very naive on their part), but Bill Hayden knew very well that every detail and every salicious rumour that was aired in that court case would be put on prime time TV and the major newspapers. So when he rocked up to court on Wednesday October 21 1998, he knew very well that this was his chance to get back at his enemies in the worst possible way (and he obviously went over it with the counsel for Abbot and Costello - no doubt there'll be denials of this), by airing rumours about Paul Keating in the public forum. Hardly anyone would have known of the rumours regarding certain aspects of those rumours, but Mr Hayden in the ultimate act of hypocrisy blurted it out anyway. Not content with saying how bad rumours are, he had to give us examples. The rumours against Costello and Abbott were cruel enough, but the whole parade of salicious detail about the opposite side of politics makes me wonder about their true intentions. Random House did after all, pulp all the books that were not bought as soon as the offending passages were brought up. Random House has also said to have offered a substantial apology in major newspapers across the counrty. A major apology in newspapers seems to atone for the few thousand people who actually read those three sentences in a book over 200 pages long. So why did they go to trial? Is it the million dollar compensation that Abbott and Costello now seem to be asking for? If so, why? Will they donate the money to charity if they win, or will they keep it? If the reason is purely money, then that is really not fair.

The reason they seem to be giving is that Random House needs to be taught a lesson. I agree. The publication of the rumours was disgraceful, and Bob Ellis should have known better (unless it was a fictional account - and remember, Jonathan Swift barely disguised his satire). Furthermore, they noted that rumours like that "stick" with some in the public willing to believe unsubstantiated claims. Even Bill Hayden said that... so why did counsel for Abott and Costello ALLOW Bill Hayden to say that stuff against Paul Keating? That is why there seems to be a second, more sinister undertone to the whole thing - a payback approach. THat it was Bill Hayden makes it all the more sickening and ridiculous. Political rumours fly around about politicians. Even In NSW, many have been publicly directed against Bob Carr, most notably in John Hewson's insinuations about the weirdness of Carr and his wife not having any children. Only recently, on a serious show on Radio National did he have to address some trivialisations about his use of public transport. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, rumours such as those contained in Goodbye Jerusalem, and those directed at Paul Keating, have a habit of staying at the back of peoples' minds. Abbott and Costello should have known better and accepted Random House's offer of a full public apology. Hopefully any monetary compensation will go to charity. Well at least most of Australia knows that the Abbott and Costello sideshow is all about a Saul like conversion to the Liberal Party... - See what I told you, everyone's a lefty at heart.

PS. Bob Ellis has been the "star" of the proceedings even though he is not a witness (may the Gods intercede and make this trial the most exciting in human history by putting him on the stand). The man is so unbelievably funny. He has done performance pieces for the cameras (that ridiculous drunk like dance) - has been threatened with eviction from the sitting justice (Terrence Higgins) for saying "bullshit" in court - has claimed IN COURT during evidence giving (I think Laurie Oakes), that people in the witness are being defamatory against him - has said he is worried that men like Peter Costello and John Abbott, who while courting were knocked back by their virgin girlfriends (now wives) at the local drive in "while going the grope", are in charge of the economy - Has said he can't apologise to men who want Random House to atone for their sins by giving them Porsches and their wives Camrys. In fact, this man is so funny I can't believe how anyone could have taken those three sentences so seriously as to go to court for the damage done (and making basically all of Australia aware of the rumours contained in the book). And you can also see from the Porsche barb why the Labor politicians usually get the best one liners to camera.