Monday’s Daily Telegraph
By LUCY ORMONDE
For weeks – months, years in some cases – the media has been running with the story of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s alleged knowledge of dodgy dealings by employees of the Australian Workers Union in 1993.
And for weeks now, you may have been wondering: What the hell is a union slush fund? Anyone else?
Ah yes, the Foreign Minister of Australia, Senator Bob Carr.
He doesn’t get it either.
Carr recently commented that “I’ve tried to read the articles on this. And my attention is flagged generally by the time I’ve got to the fifth paragraph. I can’t see what the offense is. I’ve never understood.”
Perhaps, when you first saw the story on the inside pages of the paper, you skimmed over it. Or glazed over, assuming that the media would move on. But as the weeks rolled on – so did the stories – and when Prime Minister Julia Gillard fronted the media yesterday in a press conference that went for almost an hour, it became apparent that to have an opinion on this, some basic facts and background are required.
So it’s OK Bob Carr. We’ve got your back and we can learn together.
Here goes. Hold me.
Journalist Julie Holeman from Triple J’s Hack did a great job of explaining what everyone’s been talking about:
It’s a confusing issue, but try to stay with it. Before Julia Gillard was a Prime Minister, she was a lawyer for a firm called Slater and Gordon. She had a boyfriend called Bruce Wilson who was an employee of the Australian Workers’ Union, and she did some pro bono legal work for Bruce and his colleague Ralph Blewitt. She helped them establish a fund called the AWU Workplace Reform Association.
But don’t let that name fool you – the money in the fund was actually intended for the reelection of union officials, but the money ended up being used for Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt’s personal use, including buying a house in Melbourne.
So essentially there are three issues at the centre of this:
1. Whether the Prime Minister was involved or connected with any of this wrongdoing.
2. Even if she wasn’t, was she aware of it and should she have informed the police.
3. If either (1) or (2) are true, has the Prime Minister misled the Parliament in denying them.
Bruce Wilson
Julia Gillard fronted the media during a lengthy press conference in August. She took questions from journalists in the parliamentary press gallery for over an hour in an attempt to move past the issue, which has dogged her sporadically since 1996.
And despite no clear evidence of wrongdoing on her part, yesterday the Prime Minister was forced to face the media again and defended the allegations that she knew about the deal.
“I did nothing wrong,” the Prime Minister said. “I did not set up a fund, I did not set up a bank account. Any such claim about me is a defamatory claim…. I provided advice as a lawyer about the incorporation of an association. I did not incorporate an association.”
The PM’s former boyfriend, Bruce Wilson also spoke publicly over the weekend, telling journalists that Julia Gillard was not aware of the misuse of funds. “They can go on a witch-hunt for as long as they like, and they will find nothing that will do her any harm,” he said. “It’s just a waste of time. They will find nothing…. (She) knew absolutely, categorically nothing,”
But Ralph Blewitt – Mr Wilson’s former associate who has previously admitted to engaging in fraud with Mr Wilson – says the PM did know what was going on. Blewitt went to the police last week and provided them with statements about the establishment of the the AWU Workplace Reform Association.
Ralph Blewitt
At the press conference yesterday, Ms Gillard hit back at Mr Blewitt calling him a “sexist pig.” She said: “Mr Blewitt, according to people who know him, has been described as a complete imbecile, an idiot, a stooge, a sexist pig, a liar, and his sister has said he’s a crook, and rotten to the core… His word against mine. Make your mind up.”
“You can work out who you believe: the person who is standing here, Prime Minister of Australia, who has done nothing wrong; or the man who says he’s guilty of fraud and is looking for an immunity,” the Prime Minister said. “Work it out.”
But it’s not just the media who have a stake in this. Obviously this is fertile ground for the Coalition who are using the issue for political gain. They’ve accused Julia Gillard of lying to authorities and during Question Time in parliament yesterday, Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop called on the Prime Minister to ask her former employer, Slater and Gordon to release any documents they have on the matter.
This from the ABC:
Julie Bishop
Ms Bishop continued her line of questioning, asking Ms Gillard whether her reason for not opening a file at Slater & Gordon when she dealt with the AWU Workplace Reform Association was to avoid alerting her legal partners and the union of an “unauthorised slush fund”.
Ms Gillard rejected the suggestion, saying it was common practice to do routine matters for unions free of charge and described Ms Bishop’s questions as “bordering on the embarrassing”.
“To save her the questions, let me assure her, I didn’t fake the Moon landing, I wasn’t responsible for the assassination of JFK, I didn’t shove Harold Holt on a Chinese submarine – just before she gets to those questions, because where these conspiracy theories are getting us to is truly absurd and generally embarrassing.”
Bishop alleges that the Prime Minister had sufficient knowledge of what was going on that she had a duty to go to the police at the time, to try and stop it. But the Prime Minister claims that once she was aware of the wrongdoing, it was already the subject of an inquiry.
Meanwhile the ALP say that the PM has answered all the questions the media have thrown at her but that the Coalition just want to keep asking the same questions to fuel suggestions that something is being hidden, regardless of whether it is or not.
So, what do you think? Have you been following the story? Should the media be asking questions about it? Or is it just a smear campaign by the Coalition? Or is it a case of where there’s smoke there’s fire?
Comments
122 Comments so far
I didn’t get too involved in this story until Styant-Brown’s interview on 7.30 – which really put JG in it, with the CBA fax with her name on it in 1993. This refutes her assertion that she did not know about the funding of the Kerr St house until 1995. She is guilty of something – whether it is actual wrongdoing or just lying about what she knew. She resigned from Slater & Gordon as a result of her partners becoming “uncomfortable” about her conduct on this matter. That reeks of dodgy conduct to me. She is clearly an intelligent woman, so to claim that she knew nothing of the misappropriation of funds of a slush fund that she helped set up is a bit far fetched.
loading...
I think I will cop some flak for this (if mamamia publish) but I think Abbott preys on the naive and misinformed. He has no proof but he and Julie B start their aggressive media attacks regardless. They know nothing will come from it but they hope to find people naive enough to not only believe it as truth but to remember it at election time. Actually I am sure if we forget about it we will be reminded at election time anyway.
It’s an act of desperation once again.
loading...
A lawyer having dealings with people who turn out to be crooks? And this is news?
loading...
This all goes to the credibility of Julia Gillard. Documents and files have gone missing which is why she is calling on anyone to find evidence of wrong doing. Sounds like corruption to me. This is also not a “women’s issue”. If any man says anything that she doesn’t like or agree with, they are a sexist pig. Let’s get back to improving the country for all of the people of Australia, not just for the public servants and those who belong to a Union.
loading...
The files aren’t ‘missing’. Files cannot be kept forever- after a certain amount of years (7, I believe) files are destroyed. How is that corruption?
loading...
I’m glad parliamentary time is being used so well. I sat down to watch it yesterday and for an hour, I was driven insane by the discussion. Fighting over an issue from the mid-nineties is quite frankly, absurd. Do they hope to solve it? Julie Bishop will present some brilliant Law and Order style summation? this isn’t court.
back to the real issues please.
(sorry can’t help but think of a Chaser sketch here when all the debates were going on about the National Broadband Network. It featured three elderly Aborginal women sitting around a fire talking in their native language ‘i’m really glad they’re sorting out the real isses. they have their priorities straight’. Rings true here.)
loading...
“There will be no carbon tax under my leadership” need I say more. The PM is great at lying.
loading...
And Tony A is an honest man.
loading...
“To save her the questions, let me assure her, I didn’t fake the Moon landing, I wasn’t responsible for the assassination of JFK, I didn’t shove Harold Holt on a Chinese submarine – just before she gets to those questions, because where these conspiracy theories are getting us to is truly absurd and generally embarrassing.”
LOVE IT. Hahahahaha
loading...
At the very least, it has become unquestionable that the leader of our country has (yet again) shown poor judgement. So regardless whether ppl think this story is ‘interesting’, I think it’s worthy of our attention (especially in comparison to some of the mindless ‘infotainment’ we usually see on the front page).
loading...
Is it just me? Who cares what she did in the 90s? There’s no proof she committed a crime. It’s time to let it go.
loading...
Uh, “unquestionable” is definitely the wrong word. In fact it’s directly the opposite of what you should be saying. People are questioning her motives from however many years ago, but as outlined literally everywhere, no one has any proof.
loading...
Geee – thanks for explaining it all to me in simple language. Some of your sentences are a bit long though. I think I’ll go back to the pictures
loading...
The Libs are running a ‘birther’-style campaign against Ms Gillard because they are outraged that Australia has a female Prime Minister, much like the right-wing nutters in the U.S. are against Pres. Obama, because they can’t get past the fact that there is a black man in the White House.
As other posters have mentioned, the Libs have obviously run out of ideas.
loading...
So I take it then all that misogynist stuff was because labor was outraged that the leader of the opposition is a man. Please, this gender card is getting so tiresome. What opposition would not call a Prime Minister to answer these type of allegations.
loading...
She’s already answered all the accusations thrown at her. This is nothing but a smear campaign. Everybody has has enough, the liberal party are out of ideas, maybe if they put their noggins together, they might come up with a few policy’s, but we’re yet to hear of any. Slinging mud seems to be the only thing they’re interested in. They should be ashamed of themselves.
loading...
Gilltard is either a crap lawyer or a liar or both. She certainly is bad judge of bed fellows and surrounds herself with scum sucking union fraudsters, from the mid nineties to this very day with MP Thompson.
I can’t wait for the this comming election. She will be judged by the people.
loading...
I find your use of the word ‘Gilltard’ offensive. I’d like to assume it was a typo but judging by the rest of your comment I doubt it.
The word ‘retard’ or variations of it aren’t funny, witty, or anything but plain rude.
loading...
I so don’t care about this… I read the article just now to see if the ‘scandal’ was even remotely interesting – it’s not.
loading...
This is just a pathetic smear campaign by a desperate, flailing, out of ideas, opposition. The Liberal party is losing credibility by the day.
loading...
Flailing opposition? Where have you been the last two years? They seem to be going rather nicely.
Go, Tony. Go you good thing. Don’t let these bastards get away with it, not one thing… all the way to 6:00:00 pm on election day. And then after that, set up official investigions and chase them to the day their pensions run out.
Union corruption costs everyone, especially when they are rewarded with an obiding PM.
loading...
I am a liberal supporter but describing Tony Abbott as a “good thing” is going way too far. Never has there been a more unorganised, ill-fated leader. Second to Gillard that is.
loading...
I’ve just worked out why only Julie Bishop is asking the questions in parliament.
She can’t be called a misogynist !
loading...
Bingo Bradley, I thought that myself as well.
loading...
Can you please change the record?
loading...
Which record is that ????
Is that the “blame Abbott” record that has been on continuous play at radio ALP for the last two years ?
loading...
Can’t wait to see this blow up in Julia Bishop’s face
loading...
Is your typo the ‘Julia”, or the ‘Bishop’. I am putting my money that it is the ‘Bishop’, which should have read ‘Gillard’. .
loading...
Yep….she meant Gillard.
Freudian slip or what ?
loading...
I can’t wait to see it blow up in Julie Bishop’s face either. It will. Then she’ll just go back to glaring at everybody, and Tony will be thinking, “well that was a stupid idea, why did I send a woman in to do a man’s job”. He’s a coward. It’s your smear campaign Tony. Or does he already know it’s pointless and that’s why he’s sent Julie in to do his dirty work, so when it goes wrong, and it will, he can blame her?
loading...
It is amusing, I note quite a few regular labor supporting participants on here talking today about how it was the mid 90s, how can people remember what they were doing back then, move on as there is no evidence yadda yadda. Yet, these same people were all too keen to use the story about Tony Abbott hitting a wall in his university days (and a number of other select coments from many years ago) as evidence of his underlying character. Consistency would be nice.
loading...
If only hitting a wall was all Tony Abbot did, then maybe you’d have a point. But Tony Abbot has consistently shown his underlying character which is a sexist, bumbling, inept man.
loading...
There is a very interesting letter in the SMH today (i.e. Wednesday) about Julie Bishop’s own career as a lawayer in the 1990s. I’ll copy/paste:
“Opposition deputy Julie Bishop seems to doubt the Prime Minister’s powers of recall and implies something sinister in her representation of her then partner Mr Wilson regarding the AWU ”slush” fund. Speaking to the media on Tuesday, Ms Bishop contrasted her own performance as a legal representative with Ms Gillard’s and included this: ”I didn’t have a relationship with a client” Bishop conveniently forgets that she represented the then Lord Mayor of Perth Peter Nattrass in interviews with the Anti-Corruption Commission over allegations that in the run-up to the 1999 elections he had contacted the police to get details about the criminal record of a man standing against him and used these to smear the man. Peter Nattrass was and is Bishop’s partner. Somewhat ironically Nattrass couldn’t recall requesting information from the police though there appears to be some evidence to suggest he did. His memory lapses don’t seem to trouble Bishop.”
loading...
Perhaps if the opposition stopped this smear campaign style of politics, and insulting the IQ of most Australians by doing so, they could start doing what they are supposed to be doing – Offer us an alternative government.
Maybe the problem is that they have nothing to offer, or are so unsure of what they are offering they think we will walk away in droves.
Its a pity that what they don’t realise is that this style of politics is ultimately driving people away and having the opposite effect of what they want. I know a large group of disenfranchised labor voters and swinging voters who would quite happily vote for the LNP if they just gave us something other than smear politics. if there was an election in the next week all would vote for Labor as so far there is just no real political alternative one has policies and is inspite of all this drama, passing legislation through parliment (some good, some bad). The other is not offering alternatives to the legislation being passed or offering an idea of what they will do. They are just calling the other side Names.
The absolute zeal which they are going after Julia Gillard is really awful. Look at how Tony Abbott folded when they started back on him, and the LNP said how horrible everyone was being for doing so. Seems they can give it but they can’t take it.
To the Coalition: if your leader has no policies other than name calling, replace him and put someone in who is able to govern as a leader not using bully boy tactics. It really is becoming quite distasteful for everyone who has to listen to it. Oh, and you might be surprised at the result.
loading...
The Coalition have until election day to put forward their policies, which is a whole year away.
loading...
Yes but surely they should be instilling some trust now and setting the foundations for the policies they will go to the election with. At present it just seems like they’re sitting on their haunches acting like children.
loading...
Could we actually have some.. oh I don’t know POLICY DEBATE!!! Tony Abbott and his Party continue sling mud rather than telling us what policies they have and why the hell we should vote for them…..
loading...
um, what was labor slinging with all that misogynist rubbish. Pot Kettle.
loading...
The PM reacts one time, ONE time, in three or so years of the Opposition and the media slamming the PM on entirely gender-based grounds (including people like Germaine Greer, who should know better) and you think that’s constant mud slinging? How do you add that one up?
loading...
What role has Michael Smith played in this melodrama? He certainly greeted Mr Blewitt at the airport with arms wide open whe he picked him up from the airport!! Dodgy business is this so called politics!!!!
loading...
Michael Smith, what role has he played in this melodrama? He was quite friendly at the airport when he picked up Mr Blewitt!!! Dodgy business this so called politics!!!
loading...
Interesting point is that NONE of the companies that ‘donated’ money to this fund have made any complaint.
loading...
What is your point…the fact they didnt complain makes union slush funds and outright theft ok? I know the ALP has many in their ranks that feed from the trough of unions, but seriously.
It is not a wise move for any business to ever question unions, that is a road to ruin, as stand over tactics are standard issue procedures in many unions.
loading...
I’d just like to point out a small, yet salient fact that a former WA General Manager of Theiss (one of the companies involved) at that time was a chap called Joe Trio, who just happened, and quite unexpectedly, to be the brother-in-law of Bruce Wilson.
As I said yesterday, all the documentation is on Michael Smith News, it’s just a matter of reading it for yourself.
loading...
Gillard’s ex-colleague who was interviewed on the 7.30 Report last week was very impressive. His recollections of this saga did her so much damage. He spoke without malice, convincingly and with such clarity. If Julia could defend herself with as much dignity it would benefit her so much – instead she gets down and slings mud in all directions. Just says so much about her as a person.
loading...
slinging mud is Tony Abbots speciality.
loading...
but Julia’s mud is soooo much more personal.
loading...
It just seems one thing after another with our current government and as soon as this story is laid to rest (whenever that will be) there will be something else. Both parties are just as bad as each other – there is nothing but constant mud slinging and an ongoing battle of “he said, she said”. I’m in a senior position at my work and I have KPI’s I have to meet and there is a high level of expectation about the work I produce. If Julia Gillard (or Tony Abbott for that matter) were an “employee” then they’d surely be getting performance managed by now for reasons not just relating to performance but also behaviour. I’m beginning to think that we should in fact be paying a higher salary for the role of the Prime Minister so that we might atleast attract some decent candidates for the position.
loading...
I enjoy politics, and normally tolerate and sometimes enjoy the theatre of it all, despite the fact i’d like more focus on real issues. BUT, the focus on this issue is absolutely despicable and takes it to another planet! The last week of parliament, NO talk of an NDIS, gonski reforms, the carbon tax and environmental issues, asylum seekers, ANYTHING. It is to the eternal shame of the opposition that they would waste a week of valuable parliamentary time on NOTHING. Grow up you pack of gutless wonders.
loading...
Sack Tony Abbott. There was not one question about anything of substance yesterday in question time. It was all this. Does anyone really believe we’d have to endure this if the Liberal Party would get it’s shit together and take politics seriously. They’ve run out of scare tactics on the carbon tax and now this is their next tactic. Just stop it.
loading...
This is the biggest joke of a witch-hunt.
For years the Australian has been writing articles on the issue, only to then retract the articles and publish apologies because their claims were found to be completely untrue. Other media outlets have chosen to steer clear of the so-called scandal because there is no real evidence!!
I really wish the Coalition would stop hammering after the PM and come up with some policies. That way the next election could be based on real issues, not boring old rumors.
loading...
I’ve never known of an opposition party in Australia to present it’s own policies during Question Time.
The job of any opposition party is to question the government of the day.
loading...
Exactly and from memory it’s not traditional for any opposition to put forward their policies until closer to the election.
loading...
No evidence is no evidence, Ms Bishop/Mr Abbott plan is to keep this going for as long as they can to denigrate the Prime Minister. Julia is a tough cookie and is up the job of PM, and good luck to her.
loading...
OK I am sick of all this. In fact, I am sick of hearing about the same old issues. Lets stop talking and do something about it. Have you ever watched an episode of Q&A? Same topics every week. Lets get it sorted:
Firstly, Julia Gillard, if there is any sniff of wrongdoing here, I feel you must stand down (and for the record, I do think you knew more than you say so). Also, I would remember someone putting $5k in my account. Especially if I was a partner in a law firm with a dodgy boyfriend. I would assume people might ask questions about it if it came to light .
Secondly (off topic I know, but needs to be sorted) Lets allow gay people to marry. I am sick of talking about it. We have other things in this country that need to be discussed, and this should have been done years ago. Sorted.
Thirdly, Tony Abbott please step down and let Malcolm Turnbull have another crack. You will not lead the Liberal party into victory, only the silver fox can. Move aside.
Right, thats done. What will they discuss on Q&A now? Asylum seekers I suppose.
loading...
The two things I find interesting about this issue is one of the people who picked up Mr Blewitt from the airport who would love to take down Julia Gillards and the second is how the opposition are using Julie Bishop in this matter.
loading...
Do you think it seems more palitable to have a woman attacking a woman rather than Tony sticking the boot in…could be, if that was what you meant.
loading...
good point re Bishop, she is being very “visible” on this issue.
loading...
Yes, its hard to cry sexism when it’s coming from a woman.
That sounded snarky, it’s not meant to be. It’s just a sneaky little move by the Libs there! Clever though.
….Also not a slight against Julia! Though I do wish she’d quieten her opponents in other ways.
loading...
Julia, Bruce and Ralph Blewitt.
loading...
There was a cartoon in the paper recently, that had Gillard saying ” I’ve already avoided that question “……..
loading...
I’m so over this ridiculous non-story. Pages and pages of minute details of absolute dribble.
The rabid few have decided this will be the ‘smoking gun’….well in my opinion it is less of a ‘smoking gun’ and more of a soggy fire cracker. If you already ‘hate’ (and I don’t use that word lightly) Gillard this sort of stuff will keep you warm at night. Those that love Gillard won’t be moved against her. The rest of us are just BORED SH#TLESS!!!!!!
How about we focus on discussing real issues of substance relevant to the here and now….it’s not like there aren’t a few juicy issues on the table people.
loading...
I wish I could like this comment 1 000 times!
loading...
completely and utterly AGREE to that!!
loading...
Absolutely journalists should be asking questions – I just wish the the PM would actually answer those members of the media who are really across this issue.
Please – the reason JG is suddenly announcing these ‘epic’ media conferences is to dictate the terms – if she says often enough she’s ‘answered the questions’, perhaps the public will fall for the spin. If she says often enough the whole situation is a ‘smear’ or ‘sexist’ – perhaps her electorate is either too stupid to question further, or so getting used to feeling sorry for the PM, perhaps we’ll all just drop it.
This is a very murky situation, involving the highest office in the country – every one of us deserves all the answers, and we certainly haven’t got them yet. If JG is so sure she’s done nothing wrong, then why won’t she sit down, one on one in a studio with one of the reporters who has been investigating the story and answer the tough questions?
This is an extremely important issue – it doesn’t matter whether it took place 17 years ago – in my opinion it needs to be resolved (fully) if the PM is to salvage a shred of integrity and respect for her jaded office.
loading...
Rubbish. More conspiracy theories on how she is manipulating the media. One of the leading reporters chasing this story was at BOTH press conferences and was able to ask any question he wanted.
loading...
Agreed, and if you listen to, or more properly, endure Question Time, you can see how the PM has used these prior and orchestrated media events as a tool – responding to each question by the Deputy Opposition Leader as stating that she has already addressed it publically, before going off on a tangent and giving the Opposition a serve. Another pet peeve of mine during QT is that the Government won’t allow the Opposition to table important documents. What is the reason for this? Evidently the Government does not want these documents recorded for posterity in Hansard – Hansard being a true and accurate account of what is said and tabled in Parliament. So we have verbal answers from the PM on this matter to journalists but not fully to Parliament, and as we should be all aware, there is a stricter level of accountability and consequences for ‘bending the truth’ in Parliament than there is outside those walls.
loading...
Ok, so I’ve heard this a lot. I watched the whole press conference, live,(yes I had nothing better to do) then I sat and watched the whole QT. Can you please tell me exactly which question it was that she didn’t answer because from what I saw she answered all of them? I was sitting there waiting for some huge accusation or some clever journalist to get up and ask one of these very important questions that apparently she keeps avoiding and it didn’t happen?
loading...
45 people every week die in this country form suicide because our mental health system is primitive, thousands of kids are not receiving a proper education because there are not enough special needs places and the opposition is talking about this bullshit.
Disgusting
loading...
It sure is disgusting. Maybe the government should do something about mental health and education.
loading...
I think in light of what we have already seen with Thompson, Williamson, and Obeid, it seems to show some Unions in a very morally questionable fashion. Add to that our PM, semmingly acting for her corrupt boyfriend and friends and apparently hiding that from her employer it’s a huge issue. We are talking about possible $1 million of union members money missing.
Also, she’s now calling Blewitt names when apparently they were great friends. All looks dodgy and not what you were expect of a PM.
Let’s not forget she’s been happy to try and trash Abbots character based on past events so now we get to judge her character based on past events!
loading...
Prime Minister actually said “according to people who know him” and went on to state what has been reported about Blewitt. At no time did she denigrate him personally. Opposition want to pillory the Prime Minister as well as the unions and takeover as Government. They have a motive for the story to keep going. Prime Minister has a motive for it to go away whether she did anything right or wrong. Journalists need to be aware of these motives and other journalists who are in either corner are reporting things as they want to see the matter, not as the matter is. Some journalists are running with this everyday in news papers and online with ulterior motives, up to you to pick them out look at who is writing what and how they slant the story. Some articles are vile.
loading...
But if Ms Gillard knew nothing about what her then-boyfriend was doing, and genuinely believed he was not the type to misappropriate funds, then she is an appalling judge of character.
That is a real blow to her credibility as PM. She will come out of this labelled as either dishonest or naive (that being the kindest description – others will go for stupid , dumb etc). I’m not actually sure which is the worse trait for a leader to have. Both seem pretty scary.
loading...
Yes, because none of us have ever trusted someone who turned out to be unworthy of it.
loading...
Yup. Years ago someone I knew was arrested on very serious charges. Those of us who worked with him were shocked. Clearly we should also have been arrested.
loading...
If any of you who worked with him assisted him in achieving an illegal outcome….then darn right you should have been arrested.
loading...
No, we didn’t but if he bought us lunch / a drink, does that mean we should be charged with profiting from crime?
loading...
Only if I can prove that he did indeed pay with “dirty” money !
But that’s a whole new article.
loading...
No, that’s not what I’m saying. We have probably all been unpleasantly surprised by things in different people from time to time.
But we’re not talking about trusting someone who then cheats on you, or finding out that your partner likes to pilfer office supplies from work. This is million-dollar misappropriation of funds – serious criminal behaviour.
If you’re in a four-year relationship with someone, and they turn out to have behaved as criminally as Wilson did, then you have shown poor judgement of character
And I think the leader of a country should be better than that.
loading...
I understand what you’re saying Eternal Caterpillar, but I think judging someone on their character of almost 20 years ago is a bit harsh, and perhaps pointless.
There’s no doubt it’s a messy situation, but gosh I’d hate people to be judging me on some of the ‘naive’ or ‘dumb’ decisions I made in my 20s.
loading...
She was in her mid-thirties and a partner in a law-firm, she should have been well-aware of the conflict of interest at the very least!
loading...
Quite right, hitting one’s thirties means instantaneous wisdom. It’s not so much the age that’s the issue here. It’s a person NINETEEN years ago. Just because she may have had poor judgement in certain matters then doesn’t necessarily mean it holds true now.
loading...
Didn’t she only just turn 50? So to split hairs let’s say early 30′s. I hope I’m wiser when I’m 50 than I was when I was thirty.
loading...
Yep- 51.
loading...
She was hardly young and naive! At 35 I would expect more!
loading...
This I have to disagree with. If I was judged on every shitty boyfriend I hooked up with 17 years ago, I would have been locked up a long time ago. I don’t support the PM due to her policies and her stance on many things. The fact that that she had a relationship with an asshole and was friends with a fraudster, makes her slightly more human but doesn’t mean she actually did anything wrong.
loading...
It is not about “judging her” for her taste in boyfriends, it’s about what this means if she really didn’t know what this man was like.
The Prime Minister of Australia is responsible for the most important appointments in our country. S/he appoints our Ministers – for Defence, for Health, for Finance, for Foreign Affairs, for all the Ministry Offices etc. Every facet of government is directly affected by the people in the top jobs – whom the PM appoints. The PM will also appoint High Court Judges, so will also influence legal decisions in this country. It is therefore imperative that the PM is a reasonable judge of character.
If you are in a four year relationship with someone and remain unaware that they are so incredibly dishonest that they misappropriate a million dollars – well, I think that shows you shouldn’t be the one deciding who gets to do what job.
loading...
Eternal Caterpillar, people who swindle thousands or millions of dollars are generally exceptionally cunning, exceptionally sly, and exceptionally discreet. No-one who does this stuff is stupid, many of them never get caught, or it takes years. It is quite common for those closest to someone committing fraud to have no idea what is going on. I remember when I was working in a department store, the operations manager was charged with fraud… she had slowly pilfered about 20k over 2 years (probably to try to get away from her cheating scumbag of a husband who was the store manager in another store, or for comfort), and it was only for a colleague who worked in the cash office noticing something was off that started the investigation. I’d never have guessed. And her husband never knew either.
It is every bit reasonable to suggest that Julia’s ex was just very good at hiding things and manipulating her. Would you judge someone else for ending up with an abusive and violent partner 20 years ago? Didn’t think so.
loading...
Oh absolutely! And if a woman’s husband suddenly runs off with his lover to start a new family, said woman should be ashamed of herself! How could she not realise her husband was cheating on her. Appalling judge of character!
loading...
I am surprised you think I am saying that. Infidelity and criminal behaviour are very different. I made no comment on the former.
loading...
It’s my understanding that it’s illegal to use Union member’s fees to set up a slush fund for the re-election campaigns of Union officials. They called this fund “AWU Workplace Reform Association”, despite her saying she knew it was a slush fund, and had nothing to do with “Workplace Reform”.
She was either an incompetent lawyer, or she helped her corrupt boyfriend steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from Union members, and is actively trying to cover it up.
Do we really want someone who appears to be either corrupt or incompetent running our country?
loading...
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I was under the strong impression that she already is running this country.
loading...
Not very well, and not for much longer
loading...
That is open to opinion, Skydrifter is correct, Prime Minister Julie Gillard is running the country. Do you have knowledge of the future that I do not have? Let us hear it then.
loading...
Maybe Julie should also talk about her work helping defend James hardy against the claims of their victims.
Or maybe even talk about something happening NOW!!! There is an NDIS rally at Parliament House today, maybe she should give that some energy. Or god forbid a policy!
Julie Bishop and her party are a disgrace and should be embarrassed about this. If our PM had committed a crime do you think maybe the police would have dealt with it by now.
loading...
Julie Bishop was a lawyer paid to defend James Hardy. That’s what she did.
Julia Gilliard was a lawyer paid to do work for AWU. During this time, it seems that she helped to defraud the AWU of hundred of thousands of dollars of members money.
Who’s the disgrace?
loading...
julie bishop obviously. and the more she speaks the more disgraceful she looks. she has lied about what she has said. can someone remind julie that microphones can actually record what you say so it can be played back…
loading...
Distasteful as it may have been it was actually legal for Julie Bishop to do the job James Hardy hired her to do.
loading...
Labor is not my party, but this reminds me of the Whitewater Affair that the Republicans obsessed over during Clinton’s first term – what a waste of time, energy and resources – a huge, unnecessary distraction. My very uneducated 2 cents – let reporters do the digging – the politicians should focus on their day job.
loading...
When ones only defence is to go on the attack with statements like complete imbecile, an idiot, a stooge, a sexist pig, a liar, and his sister has said he’s a crook, and rotten to the core I have to wonder why an articulate, intelligent person does that?
Was he these things when she agreed to undertake pro bono work for him?
Blewitt has made allegations, serious allegations & JG needs to address these allegations in an appropriate manner & stop engaging in mud slinging. As a PM when their integrity is questioned, if they are not guilty of accusations why would you belittle yourself by this name calling?
loading...
Completely agree! putting aside who did what, the way that Julia Gillard carries on calling people horrible names is just unnesscary. Pull yourself together and act like the leader of our country should.
I would listen to Julia Gillard a lot more if she described people a lot more respectfully.
Something has got to be said though, why would Mr Blewitt risk getting himself into further trouble by admitting to police all his wrong doings and giving evidence against Julia Gillard? Call him untrustworthy Julia, not a sexist pig!!!
loading...
What allegations.We have not seen these yet. The police has his statement. Up to police not us as judge and jury.
loading...
I think the Coalition Deputy’s full name is Julie “It’s not a handbag hitsquad if I’m the one talking” Bishop.
And I’d like her to give a full recollection of whatever she was doing in the mid90s. With footnotes. And if she can’t/won’t/doesn’t, then OBVIOUSLY SHE IS HIDING SOMETHING!!!!
loading...
I would like you to advise us what alleged illegal activity Julie Bishop was undertaking in the mid 90′s if you know so much.
loading...
I’ve been following this for well over a year. My interest was originally sparked due to the sacking of Michael Smith from 2UE (who I regularly listened to here in Brisbane when he was a presenter on 4BC). If you or any of your readers want to completely understand this issue, then I’d strongly advise reading Michael Smith’s blog – ‘Michael Smith News’ (google it, it won’t be hard to miss).
As to your specific questions:
So, what do you think? I personally think the four odour of corruption and cover-up has permeated our Parliament, lessening and devaluing our country and institutions in the process.
Have you been following the story? Yes, for over a year now.
Should the media be asking questions about it? Absolutely – but the questions should be those from the media who are fully across this issue – Hedley Thomas from The Australian, Michael Smith & Mark Baker (The Age) spring immediately to mind. Consider this analogy – imagine you could interview Albert Einstein about his work in physics, who would you choose to interview him? Oprah Winfrey or Stephen Hawking? That is the difference between the crop of journalists that have interviewed Gillard so far, and the real journalists and investigators who are fully across the issue and have not been allowed to personally quiz the PM about her actions.
Or is it just a smear campaign by the Coalition? Short answer No. Long answer – No. Btw, if these were actual smears then why hasn’t the PM issued defamation writs against her chief accusers? To date – none, and it’s not like the PM wouldn’t know her rights under the Law.
Or is it a case of where there’s smoke there’s fire? It’s not just a fire, it’s a whopping great big bushfire. Do your research, there is enough documentation out there to come to a personal conclusion about this matter. Yes, it is complex, it will require putting your thinking cap on and not just reading the first paragraph or a headline, but believe me, it’s worth the effort.
loading...
I have been following the story and am very interested in the role she played. What has Blewitt got to gain by lying? Is there any suggestion on why anyone thinks he would be motivated to do so? What is this “immunity” that Julia is referring to in her statement?
That all being said……
Did Julia Gillard really refer to Ralph Blewitt as a “sexist pig”??? That’s about done it for me…. What an unproffessional response. I find that a disgraceful statement coming from the leader of our country.
When I first left university (early 90′s) I joined a nationwide trucking company as a supervisior on a graduate mgt programme. I had to manage teams of truck drivers as a 22 year old female uni grad. It was hard work and it was a tough enviroment. I would have stand up debates with the other transport supervisors about whether women “had any place in transport”….many of these guys were dinosaurs who had worked their way up the chain from being truckies themselves. On the otherhand , I was very well supported by management and allowed to keep an open dialogue about what was happening in the workplace. At 22 years old, I knew it would be inappropriate to describe these guys as “sexist pigs”. Just wrong. JG needs to expand her vocabulary and learn to discuss the issues in HER WORKPLACE without resorting to insults and name calling. (as per her carrying on about Tony Abbot).
loading...
Whether he is sexist or not or used prostitutes in Asia or not (as she said)
Boo JG, just booo! PMs everywhere must take scrutiny on the nose almost all the time – it is in the job description. Deal with it.
True or not, that would not mean she is innocent of wrongdoing. It is just a diversion, and proves that Julia Gillard must take us for idiots! And such a shame after the royal Commission into child sex abuse had restored my faith in her quite a bit
loading...
PrimeMinister Julie Gillard said “according to people who know him,” Blewitt is………Please listen to what she actually said. Some reporters have omitted this from their articles, some deliberately.
loading...
@Lorraine – oh really? that’s even worse!!! Talk about playground politics!
It’s like a bunch of 9 year olds saying …..”I don’t like what you said to me, so I’m going to announce to everyone that “SOMEONE” said you’re a mole and dog….. (or a sexist pig).”
God help us Australia!
loading...
She was a lawyer, she should know that saying “according to people who know him” doesn’t fly.
This whole case is making her look more and more dodgy as a person, or more and more incompetent as a lawyer.
loading...
I know of a couple of jornalistic types who would like to ask the Prime Minister some hard questions about this issue !
She avoids those journos like the plague.
This is just the beginning. There’s a huge iceberg sitting just below that tip !
loading...
If you have allegations to make, put them to us Bradley.
loading...
unlike tony abbott who never turns down an opportunity to answer the hard-hitting questions on Q&A, 7.30 report and Lateline and doesn’t waste time appearing on those dodgy morning programs…. oh wait.
loading...
I’d rather hear politicians explain why the Nationals and Greens moved a motion against the Murray Darling Basin Plan announced last week – the first time in over a century we’ve had a plan for managing our major river system.
loading...
Julia Gillard should actually try answering questions for once, instead of dodging around and not actually answering it.
loading...
Jess – are you kidding? The PM has held two epic press conferences now where she answered every question journalists had til they ran out of questions to ask!
She’s said she didnt know about it and she’s done nothing wrong – pretty unambiguous answers.
Whether you believe her or not is up to you, but she has answered questions.
loading...
errrrr actually she has answered selected journos questions, other journos she avoids for whatever reasons
loading...
‘Selected journo’s’ if by that you mean the entire press gallery!
loading...
Thats rubbish she had all major players there answered question from hostile jurnos and norm whole cam press were ther
loading...
Yes. She has answered questions. Who knows, one day she might even provide an answer to a question that has actually been asked !
That would be historic !
loading...
They aren’t real press conferences if the journos who are actually across the situation aren’t allowed to ask the questions they want.
loading...
Were they stopped from asking questions? Barred from the room or something?
loading...