If the mud don’t stick, attack on another front

Mr. Jordon says:

02:39pm | 21/08/12

And what was the question?

She asked him if he had an allegation. He refused to present one.

Why?

Why will no one put an allegation to her directly?

Carol says:

03:17pm | 21/08/12

SM,
This country has problems right now, do you really care what might or might not have happened 17 years ago?
Our world is undergoing a transition, all our energy should into fixing our current problems. I won’t go into Tony’s claimed past indiscretions, why bother? Seeing as he is a man of God I know they cannot be true?

If this country of ours is to survive we need to concentrate on the now, we can do nothing about the past.

Esteban says:

03:52pm | 21/08/12

Good idea Mr Jordan. I also think someone should put an allegation direct to Mr Abbott that he has a problem with strong women.

Then he can deny the allegation and that will be that.

In fact the whole justice system could operate that way. Put allegations direct to people and if they say no we let them go.

Then we would not have any need for investigations because the accused will tell us if they did it or not.

There should be no need for an investigation into Craig thompson because he said he didn’t do it.

All polititions are above reproach and their word is sure good enough for me.

Bob says:

03:57pm | 21/08/12

Nobody will put an allegation to her directly because they can’t prove it, and by making the allegation they leave themselves open to a defamation suit.

Which Gillard knows and uses to avoid being put in the position of answering questions that there is no benefit to her in answering. 
Very logical and rational as a strategy in this case. Even if it is not especially transparent, it seems fair enough to me.

SM says:

04:05pm | 21/08/12

@Carol - “This country has problems right now, do you really care what might or might not have happened 17 years ago?”

When it involves the prime minister, yes I do Carol.  And when she ducks the question, common sense tells you that she has something to hide. 

She could have answered it in 30 seconds.  THEN we can move onto dealing with all the problems of today

thatmosis says:

04:47pm | 21/08/12

Yes Carol as it goes to the very core of who we are dealing with. her excuse that she was young and naive doesn’t hold water if she was a practising lawyer and if she did know we are entitled to know the truth, something that she finds very difficult to come to terms with and probably wouldn’t know it if it hit her in the face.
  I for one would really like to know how a person with her qualifications didn’t know what was going on it is either because she was inept and stupid or knew exactly what was happening and was a party to it all and the freebies that were provided for her because of this work.

Greg in Chengdu says:

05:16pm | 21/08/12

Surprise surpriseto Julia’s Malcolm Farr comes running to Julia’s defence. How much soke do we have to see before we realise there is a fire in the labor party?

HappyG says:

03:00pm | 21/08/12

@AdamC. have a look at the details of the case on Larry Pickering’s blog. Some of his allegations are staggering. If someone was saying this stuff about me and had no proof I’d have them up for slander quick smart. Why is Gillard not going down this path ? My guess is that there’s substance to it and Pickering ( and others ) can prove it. This is not over by a long shot.

Knemon says:

03:53pm | 21/08/12

I tend to agree with AdamC, that’s interesting what you say about Larry Pickering HappyG, I feel he has probably given Gillard an out if there is anything to answer for. “I’d have them up for slander quick smart…Why is Gillard not going down this path” - She will if she has to and she will use Pickering’s credibility as a starting point.

Super D says:

04:19pm | 21/08/12

So from what I have gleaned Gillard was responsible for setting up an association - a legal entity - for the benefit of AWU workers.  She later acknowledged that this fund was a union slush fund.  That is pretty much a crime right there.  She knew that an association she had set up was not being used for the purpose that she had stated to the relevant government department it was for.  Its not the rumours and innuendo that will do Gillard in, its the cold hard facts.

iansand says:

04:26pm | 21/08/12

Lange v ABC (or some other media organisation)  Implied Constitutional right of free speech in relation to political matters.

Babylon says:

04:50pm | 21/08/12

Lets look at the highlights of the Slater and Gordon statement:

“proper vigilance ....  had not been observed”
They suggest she was incompetent.

“utmost good faith to her partners”
They suggest they felt betrayed.

  “especially as to timely disclosure “
They suggest she kept information from them.

I believe the articles today talk about her going to be sacked but allowed to resign.

This is the leader of our country.

As Gillard wont discuss this and wont let it be discussed or investigated, by threat of litigation and politicking, she leaves herself open to speculation and conjecture in this matter.

If it were me and I was innocent, I would unshackle the evidence.

iansand says:

02:44pm | 21/08/12

You haven’t seen what happens when someone doesn’t meet their monthly billing target.

I hate pies says:

02:55pm | 21/08/12

Spot on - she jumped before she was pushed, to save face for herself and the firm. Regardless of whether she ripped the union off or not the conflict of interest is as plain as the nose on your face. You don’t become a partner and not be able to recognise that; therefore she is culpable.

Strange how Mal puts this article in the framework of the Liberal party when none of the allegations are their doing. He’s clearly trying to implicate them in something they have nothing to do with. There’s no other reason to mention the opposition.

VVS says:

03:29pm | 21/08/12

I rarely ever met billing targets, sometimes was nowhere near them…

Never got more than a “try and do better next month”...

Benefits of being the go to guy when the sh!t hits the fan and you are someone who can produce unlikely results. A lot of litigation has very little to do with actual law.

eRon says:

04:04pm | 21/08/12

The sly language (otherwise known as spin) that Gillard puts on it, by saying it was her decision imputes that she did nothing wrong, and she left the firm of her own free will.
If she left of her own free will, why was she dirty on the other partners for their lack of support? If she was leaving to pursue politics, why the antipathy toward those she worked for?
Gillard is a scheming grub, whose history as Australian PM will leave an indelible stain on the Australian political landscape.

JoniM says:

04:47pm | 21/08/12

Slater & Gordon know there is much much more, where that came from, that will come their way, if they just remain loyal !
Gotta love that Union and Government money !

ronny jonny says:

02:41pm | 21/08/12

Damn it.

Knemon says:

03:25pm | 21/08/12

Shit happens ronny jonny

maria says:

04:23pm | 21/08/12

She knows how to use our corrupted system ....our wonderful mafiacracy.

SallyA says:

05:16pm | 21/08/12

Something smells here for sure!!
It was the Labor who brought this up in the Parliament not the Liberals…could also be a ploy to get her some sympathy votes..she is by far the worst P.M this country has ever seen!!

Babylon says:

03:51pm | 21/08/12

We have statements only ......  there is no ‘evidence’ at all.

It would be truer to say:

’ we have statements from people potentially impacted should a full investigation take place. These statements suggest that Julia Gillard did not deliberately steal the money.’

There was most certainly ‘wrong doing’ because $1 million dollars was stolen.

We can define ‘Wrong doing’ as ‘complicity’ or ‘incompetence’.

Are either of these the attributes one who wish the leader of our country to possess?

Imagine you are interviewing someone for the role of PM of Australia.

TC says:

04:11pm | 21/08/12

I picked up on that too, no STRONG evidence? How strong does the evidence have to be? Gillard won’t go on the record and explain what happened and has spent considerable time bullying journalists into submission so they are afraid to ask questions about it. Three journos have lost their jobs for looking into it. She dodges and ducks and weaves when she is asked questions to clarify the situation.  She is very defensive about it all, and yet we get told by her protectors in the ALP and media “move along folks, nothing to see here” and we are supposed to do just that.

jaki says:

03:02pm | 21/08/12

So that’s two marriages she’s broken up!
Oh that’s right- she did say once that wives were just prostitutes.
What a wonderful role-model she is !

Joe Blow says:

03:07pm | 21/08/12

Didn’t she also have an affair with a married Labor pollie?  Bit of a trend there?

Babylon says:

04:00pm | 21/08/12

Sirro, Jaki and Joe Blow

Because there is no evidence like documents or accounts of interviews and we only have various statements from people protecting their corner.

Are you trying to suggest that errant bad behaviour and evidence of a flawed character cancels out mere statements from self interested parties and makes one a more likely suspect than not in this matter?

Hmmm ...Interesting perspective Malcolm?

Joe Blow says:

05:25pm | 21/08/12

@Babylon.  well if nothing else it shows that she is not guided by the same ethical/moral standards as most of us.  It is therefore possible that this deficiency in her moral code would make her more susceptible to flouting other ethical codes.  Just saying. 

Helps explain why she didn’t think Craig Thomson had done anything wrong.

DJ says:

03:38pm | 21/08/12

and what are these questions?

eRon says:

04:20pm | 21/08/12

What about the (what was it…?) eighteen grands worth of lady clothes paid for from the suspect account? Did Wilson buy them for himself?
The hardest thing to prove, would be that she turned a blind eye to Wilson’s activities, while she benefited from his largesse.
I’d love to see those receipts for the building work Wilson organised for her renovations.

Kingy says:

04:07pm | 21/08/12

@DocBud
And that would be what? Come on, please spell it out. Don’t be coy

Queensland Observer says:

03:50pm | 21/08/12

Oh, this is where I read it:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3525389.htm

Queensland Observer says:

04:10pm | 21/08/12

Oh, this is where I read it:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3525389.htm

(Apologies if this is a multi-post.)

Queensland Observer says:

04:10pm | 21/08/12

Oh, this is where I read it:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3525389.htm

(Apologies if this is a multi-post.)

Greg says:

04:14pm | 21/08/12

Matt, I think you will find that it was the QLD DDP that went after Hanson and prosecuted her not Tony Abbott. The reason i say this is because that’s what the appeal clearly states, hanson v DPP, not hanson v abbott. Plus it was also a labor government in QLD at the time so it was no coalition put up job.

Greg says:

04:14pm | 21/08/12

Matt, I think you will find that it was the QLD DDP that went after Hanson and prosecuted her not Tony Abbott. The reason i say this is because that’s what the appeal clearly states, hanson v DPP, not hanson v abbott. Plus it was also a labor government in QLD at the time so it was no coalition put up job.

maria says:

05:19pm | 21/08/12

Honest Tony ??????????????????????
In 1998, Abbott established a trust fund called “Australians for Honest Politics Trust” to help bankroll civil court cases against the One Nation party and its founders, Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge.

He was also accused of offering funds to One Nation dissident Terry Sharples to support his court battle against the party. Abbott conceded that the political threat One Nation posed to the Howard Government was “a very big factor” in his decision to pursue the legal attack, but he also claimed to be acting “in Australia’s national interest”.

Prosecution resulted in Hanson & Ettridge being imprisoned.

The conviction against Hanson was ultimately overturned, leading to criticism of a range of politicians for political interference by the adjudicating justice and she is still awaiting for compensation.

Where the bloody hell is HONEST TONY to play the same game.

Why do you think that Tony is against direct democracy and happy to keep our corrupted system?

stevem says:

04:20pm | 21/08/12

This has been my take on the issue from the first time I heard the story. In a profession where the appearance of probity is almost as important as the actions themselves this was very odd behavior. In a firm that size there would have been many other lawyers capable of handling the AWU account.
My guess is that the potential conflict of interest was not known to the more senior partners within the firm.

Joe Blow says:

04:16pm | 21/08/12

She seems to have a few of them ....

eRon says:

04:35pm | 21/08/12

Like Gillard needs help with discrediting…
If you call a decision to require her resignation in favour of the bullet, getting “support”, I suppose you’re right.
If Gillard was free in her decision to move on, why was she so upset with the partners at the firm for their “lack of support” at the time?
She is typically being a bit tight with the truth.
Like we should expect anything else.

eRon says:

04:36pm | 21/08/12

Like Gillard needs help with discrediting…
If you call a decision to require her resignation, or accept the bullet, getting “support”, I suppose you’re right.
If Gillard was free in her decision to move on, why was she so upset with the partners at the firm for their “lack of support” at the time?
She is typically being a bit tight with the truth.
Like we should expect anything else.

Anubis says:

04:40pm | 21/08/12

@ Kingy - this recent spate of interest in these activities was actually resurrected by a current Labor MP. Nothing to do with Pickering or any radio “personality”. They have just helped to expand on the theme.

eRon says:

04:53pm | 21/08/12

sorry for the double… Some weird s*** going on at punch server HQ this arvy.

Anne Voter says:

05:06pm | 21/08/12

Except that it wasn’t.

The most recent peddler pf the smear IS Larry Pickering - its on his blog within the last few days, and has been off and on for yonks.

On his Blog. Matter of public record. Refuse to dignify same with link

Bolt previously. Prior to, and ongoing that: a private site with a richly ironic name that you can look up yourself.

Babylon says:

06:08pm | 21/08/12

Yes Babylon, consider

- incompetence - Asylum Seeker debacle
- Betrayal -  Backstabbing her good Mate Rudd, twice.
- Deceit -  ... there will be no carbon tax…

Christian Real says:

07:13pm | 21/08/12

Babylon
You have just described Tony Abbott perfectly,he is the master of:
Incompetence
Betrayal
Deceit

eRon says:

04:43pm | 21/08/12

You berating others for peddling “partisan tosh”, is a bit rich Anne.
If Gillard was such a stellar example of lawyerly prudence, why was the firm that concerned about her actions that it took the extraordinary step to hold a recorded interview with one of their own partners?
And why, after that interview was completed, did the firm require Gillard’s resignation?
If she was happy to make the decision to move on, why was she so upset with the other partners at S&G for their lack of support that presumably led to her resignation?
So, you were saying something about rebuttal?

stevem says:

05:04pm | 21/08/12

Don’t forget they’re lawyers. Their wording is precise and what they don’t say is every bit as important as what the do say. Examining their statement:

“Upon the Slater & Gordon partnership learning of what has been described as the AWU/Bruce Wilson allegations in August 1995, it conducted an internal LEGAL review as it would do, and has done, whenever any such allegations might be made.

Ms Gillard co-operated fully with the internal review and denied any wrong doing.”

The word legal was inserted very deliberately to mean that Gillard did nothing illegal. It doesn’t address any other aspect of her actions.

The timeline given shows the scandal came to light in August, was followed by an internal review after which Gillard took a leave of absence - for 8 months. That’s an incredibly long time for an ambitious up and coming lawyer.

I don’t think their statement was an effective rebuttal at all. It serves to cover themselves and clear Gillard of any illegal actions. It clearly leaves open any other aspect of professional misconduct.

MH says:

05:54pm | 21/08/12

So, the sanitized non-statement from the current head of Slater & Gordon who wasn’t a partner at the time and who has a material personal interest in all of this going away so as not to continue to taint his firm.  Yes, clearly we should just accept that at face value and look no further.  Alternatively, we can see what the partners at the time have to say about it.  You know, the people who were actually privy to the review and who no longer have a vested interest in sweeping it all under the carpet.

Anne Voter says:

06:47pm | 21/08/12

Slater and Gordon did *NOT* require her to resign. Simply false.

From Sep 1995 she took leave - as she should have-  to contest a Senate seat. Unsuccessful.

She later resigned. Why? To take up a political staffer position to Vic Opposition Leader Brumby. That was in May1996.

This is the *third* time I’ve attempted to make this factual, non-inflammatory, non-defamatory post. 

All in the SLater and Gordon statement.  She was NOT required to resign.

Babylon says:

06:56pm | 21/08/12

Anne Voter

Mr Styant-Browne told The Australian yesterday: “When I made public certain of the matters surrounding Julia Gillard’s departure from Slater & Gordon, I was meticulous to ensure a balanced account of the facts was given. I did not ever contemplate that the world’s only publicly listed law firm, Slater & Gordon, would SPIN THE FACTS of her departure to the market in the way that it did yesterday so as to protect the Prime Minister’s position.”

Christian Real says:

07:20pm | 21/08/12

Babylon
The Liberals are good at muck raking and coming up with false stories they can’t substansiate.
Ute Gate
Thompson Gate
Slipper gate
and now
Gillard Gate

Anne Voter says:

07:34pm | 21/08/12

“News reports today say the Slater & Gordon executives at the time, and the AWU investoigators, did not believed Ms Gillard was knowingly involved in any wrong-doing.”
Source: Punch, above.

End of story.

Posted (attempt 1) @ 1932hrs 21 Aug

eRon says:

05:14pm | 21/08/12

Nice work Robin! Michael Smith is all over this, and after losing his job because another ‘entity’ pressured his employer to fire him, is clearly pulling out the stops. There’s more dirty secrets in this story than you can poke a stick at. Anyone who votes, and plenty that don’t should watch this, and learn.
And these miserable rogues think they have a right to influence the running of this country.
Good on him. Here’s a direct link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_BGGuYJIbg

Brenda says:

05:23pm | 21/08/12

Goodness, I just looked at that utube time bomb.  Immediately into Mr Smith’s interview, he points out that legally there was supposed to be a minimum of five members to form the “association” signed off under Miss Gillard’s signature - and there were only TWO.

Just for starters, how did a practising lawyer employed by a high profile law firm sign off on a document that in the first instance appears not to have met the legal rules of association?

I don’t think this is going away.  It can’t possibly be swept under the carpet.

Joe Blow says:

06:14pm | 21/08/12

What a strange media we have, when a guy like Smith who has forensically investigated this issue can’t get an interview, while people like Latham, Farr,  van Onselen, and Cassidy are given full sway to bury the story?

Knemon says:

06:50pm | 21/08/12

Hilarious - A sacked shock jock in a suit standing in front of the Australian flag pretending he has evidence against Gillard (whom he openly detests)...it doesn’t get much better…LOL.

eRon says:

07:26pm | 21/08/12

Yeah Knemon, he’s making this stuff up, and going on the public record with it because of a pathological irrational hatred of Gillard.
He OBVIOUSLY just doesn’t like the colour of her hair, and has made up this amazing, convoluted lie, implicating a Prime Minister and various other people in order to expose himself to the mother of all libel suits.
Of course!

Adrian says:

07:09pm | 21/08/12

Because maybe if every politician (and not just Gillard - Abbott, Milne, Turnbull etc) sued everyone on the internet who are using blogs, facebook and other social media for what they’re writing, the queue to get access to our legal system would go halfway from here to the moon?

Why didn’t John Howard sue anyone over all the false truths that were written about him online? Because the way the internet works, as soon as you plug one mouthpiece, someone else takes their place and repeats the same stuff. It’s a hiding to nothing.