Five Questions Julia Gillard Should Answer

[icyfroth]

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...

[cherry*135]

Isn't that what we just spent $37million for?

Yes, to find out absolutely nothing new (in Julia's case at least)

[boris1gary]

http://wixxyleaks.com/trash-attempts-to-trash-julia-gillards-reputation-fail-in-every-aspect/

Trash – Attempts to trash Julia Gillards reputation fail in every aspect

The other aim of Counsel Assisting in my opinion was to extract the “I don’t recall” answer from Gillard as many times as possible to make her testimony seem less reliable.

This was done by asking ridiculously minute details of conversations that may or may not have taken place two decades ago, or mundane details of what sections of an act were used to form part of legal advice, and where the witnessing of documents took place and who was in attendance at the time. Questions that given the passage of time involved would be almost impossible to give exact answers on. Gillard eventually gave this response that resulted in cheers and laughs in the media room.

“My evidence is that I was a busy solicitor across the years in which I practised as a lawyer. I would have witnessed thousands of documents. I do not have specific recall of, you know, each and every document I witnessed and the circumstances, you know, which room, which desk, what I was wearing, I don’t have that kind of recall, but I witnessed documents appropriately.”

This led to this question from Stoljar which resulted in an answer from Gillard causing a roar of laughter from those in the media room

Stoljar: What about your practice in respect of dating a particular document? Did you have any practice in that regard?

Gillard: You put the right date on a document

However it was the blunt tone of Gillards response that put Stoljar in his place and highlighted the disrespect and desperation in the line of questioning.

In the end Gillard finished the day having faced all of the allegations against her and shooting them all down in flames.

There will always be those out there that believe Elvis Presley is still alive and that Bigfoot exists, just as I’m sure there will be those out there that believe Julia Gillard is guilty of something.

However just as the public would not like to see vast amounts of taxpayer funds spent hunting mythical creatures and dead celebrities, the vast majority of the public are dismayed to see so much money wasted on a baseless attack from a bunch of sexist commentators and politicians on our first female Prime Minister.

It is about time this travesty ended.

[fourandsixpants]

     you've set a record for smilie LOL's am3 CONGRATULATIONS!

[bushies.girl]

Icy do you ever post anything the isn't C & P?

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@bushies.girl wrote:

Icy do you ever post anything the isn't C & P?

---

I think it is OK to post C&Ps as long as the poster follows up on her posts and can formulate an intelligent argument throughout the thread based on that C&P. And to be fair, icy does this.

She rarely posts and runs unlike others on here.

[bushies.girl]

Guess we have differing opinions Martini 🙂

[alexander*beetle]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

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?

Answered

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?

Answered

Why did you never open an office file for your work related to the AWU slush fund?

Answered

Were you forced to leave Slater & Gordon?

Answered

Do you believe union corruption is a ­problem in Australia

Stupid question. But why is she responsible for union corruption. 

---

[cherry*135]

3:36 pm - Julia Gillard is allowed to leave the witness chair and is "excused" from further attendance at the royal commission. 

(She's done.)

As a successful lawyer in the 1990s, Julia Gillard made some questionable judgments (i.e. not keeping official files, associating with people who had dubious plans for a Workplace Reform Association), but this - in and of itself - isn't enough to damn her. 

No smoking guns or plot changing slip ups here. 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/the-pulse-live/union-royal-commission-live-julia-gillard-appe...

[icyfroth]

---

@bushies.girl wrote:

Icy do you ever post anything the isn't C & P?

---

Yes quite often, if you bother to look at the board.

Do you NEVER post any C&P? Really? What about in the music thread?

[icyfroth]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@bushies.girl wrote:

Icy do you ever post anything the isn't C & P?

---

I think it is OK to post C&Ps as long as the poster follows up on her posts and can formulate an intelligent argument throughout the thread based on that C&P. And to be fair, icy does this.

She rarely posts and runs unlike others on here.

---

Thank you Martini.