You're intelligent, politically savvy and a successful lawyer. You knew Wilson personally and professionally. Why did it take you so long to decide he couldn't be trusted?
This is probably the question asked most frequently and the hardest for Ms Gillard to answer.
In hindsight, the evidence appears compelling that Mr Wilson abused his position as a union leader in the early 1990s (he denies breaking the law).
He bought a house in inner-city Melbourne with the proceeds of money extorted from companies, an ex-friend alleges. Ms Gillard was present at the auction and helped with the paperwork. How could she not see what was going on in front of her?
On the other hand, Ms Gillard was in the subordinate professional relationship. It was her job as Mr Wilson's lawyer to do what he wanted. She was a junior law partner. She had political ambitions. He was running a whole union, which made him a player in the Labor Party. Who hasn't misjudged someone they trusted in their 20s or 30s?
In your exit interview with Melbourne law firm Slater & Gordon in 1995, you said: "I can't categorically rule out that something at my house didn't get paid for by the association or something at my house didn't get paid for by the union or whatever." Why not?
This quote may be the most damning made by Ms Gillard. She told her bosses she had checked her receipts and couldn't see that anyone else helped pay for a renovation at a Melbourne house she bought in 1991. But the quote suggests her uncertainty that she didn't benefit personally from Mr Wilson's slush fund.
Supporters might argue that even if Ms Gillard did receive a few thousand dollars in free labour or materials from her client, 30 years ago, that is nothing compared with a career of high achievement or the benefits traded in business every day.
Why did you never open an office file for your work related to the AWU slush fund?
Ms Gillard has presented this decision as a minor matter during a busy time. It may have been. But it had big consequences. By not opening a file for the AWU work, no one else at Slater & Gordon was aware she was helping Mr Wilson set up a non-profit association that would be used to house a slush fund. If they had, someone more senior could have stepped in and saved her from herself. Lawyer to lawyer, an explanation for this oversight would be fascinating.
Were you forced to leave Slater & Gordon?
Ms Gillard has acknowledged that she left the Melbourne law firm in 1995 under strained circumstances but denied she was fired. She never went back to the law.
Her critics say she was forced to resign because her bosses were angry about her connection to the AWU slush fund. Nick Styant-Browne, who was the head of Slater & Gordon's commercial department, has said he doubted her explanation about the slush fund and thought there was a case for her dismissal. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, the former head of a Perth law firm, said she would have fired her on the spot.
Slater & Gordon has now closed ranks behind Ms Gillard. But if her own colleagues at the time – without knowing she was a future prime minister – thought Ms Gillard's transgression serious enough to have her leave, that's pretty damning.
Do you believe union corruption is a problem in Australia?
Ms Gillard was a pro-union leader. She introduced the Fair Work Act, which many employers dislike. Given she came from the left of the Labor Party, that's hardly surprising. What many people following the royal commission would like to know is whether Ms Gillard thinks union corruption is a significant problem.
Slush funds, which preserve entrenched power and make it harder to remove corrupt union leaders, are clearly endemic in the labour movement. Officials in some unions, including the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, may have taken bribes from criminals.
Some of the lowest-paid members of our society, including thousands of members of the Health Services Union, have been preyed upon by rapacious union leaders.
The union movement is unlikely to be cleaned up unless its political leaders, which included Ms Gillard, acknowledge there is a problem.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/five-questions-julia-gillard-should-answer-201...
she has answered every question, fgs how many times will she have to answer the same rubbish, maybe judge judy could pop overogQ!(U~$(KGrHgoOKjYEjlLmS1ctBJ1K-4Uyh!~~_7.JPG?set_id=81 "i-need-a-martini"){kind=avatar}
