Graham,

As you pointed out, this scandal was not raised by the coalition, but by the unions and then pursued by the media, with the coalition tagging on at the end.

And Abbott got no kudos for pursuing this. However, given that one of the points of the attack was to tie Gillard, Labor, and union corruption together and expose daily in the media. Especially given Labor's prominent pursuit of popular policies such as the NDIS etc, to see a collapse in the polls would indicate that there was more than a little success.

Graham, I think that your thoughtful analysis is sound, and I wouldn't argue with it. Don't forget the contributions of Labor stalwarts Robert McClelland, Ian Cambridge and Bob Kernohan to this issue - all profound.

There is, however, another elephant in the room here that could be causing intense pressure for JEG. The investigative journalists (Hedley Thomas, Mark Baker, Michael Smith, Grace Collier and writer Harry Nowicki) are digging hard and unearthing all kinds of documents. There is a real risk that their digging will reveal the much bigger issue that lies behind the AWU WRF issue - that is, the practice of contracting and construction companies paying off union officials to gain industrial "peace". It would seem that Grollo's experiences in Melbourne could be to do with their unwillingness to play that game, whereas other companies have been somewhat more pragmatic.

If I am correct, then I think that a lot of people might be keen to see JEG get the AWU WRF issue off the front pages, especially going into an election year. That could be why the Coalition placed so much emphasis on it during question time in the last week of sitting.

A good analysis overall Graham.

The Coalition's pursuit of this matter may have had more weight or been seen as legitimate if handled differently without the strident and sometimes hysterical attacks in parliament and in the media.

It was difficult I think for people to see the AWA attacks as separate from other issues. Like public perceptions of 'the Noalition' and 'right to rule' behaviours, 'no policies' and some dodgy rhetoric on the Carbon Tax. Thus the attacks were seen as part of some wider aggression towards the minority government.

There clearly was something wrong with the AWU fund but doubts still centre around the extent to which JG was involved. JG certainly acted secretively in deciding not to open a file and being intimately connected with the client as a conflict of interest.

I do think people care about the integrity of their leaders but proving it is another matter and in many cases a dogged pursuit does not always mean there is anything to find and can place the attacked in the position of underdog if pursued too rabidly or vehemently.

On this and other issues, specifically the misogynist rant, Gillard is showing a strident triumphalism that is a poor look. Her main strength is Abbott's equally poor look.
There's not a great deal between them, confected outrage notwithstanding.
I foresee another informal ballot coming up, unless either side can offer a leader worth voting for.

Three probably minor points Graham

'Indeed, making allegations and failing to substantiate them can blow-back on the accuser,...

Is there any evidence of this in your stats in relation to the 'misogynist' attacks?

I think the coalition is building up to a painting of the union movement as generally corrupt and wasteful of members funds with the intent of negating any union campaign similar to the 'Your Rights at Work'.

Any suspect connect between Gillard and Unions would help.

Abbott attacking Gillard personally would have been viewed as 'beating up' on a woman. I thought Abbotts tactics effectively negated that and Gillard's tactics lacking judgement. Abbott slow to become involved, using Bishop as the shock troop, and finally laying out the explicit caseagainst Gillard in the house after her invitation to do so. Gillard evasive and fudging media performances and then giving Abbott an opportunity to state his case formally in the House.

Let me preference my remarks with the revelation, that I never have and never will vote Labour, while ever an independent stands!
Well, here we go again, with the same tired and boring, same old same old.
There is a thing called client confidentiality Graham, and its probably more sacred than a journalist's right to refuse to reveal sources.
And that does take some integrity, moral courage and testicular fortitude, and at times, contempt of court/jail time!
Lawyers and journos have at least one thing in common, they rarely if ever, get to choose who they associate with, in the course of pursuing their career objectives!
Julia was duped and betrayed by a person she trusted implicitly. And that betrayal cost her, her partnership and lucrative career! Isn't that enough?
As for the union thing, where is the evidence of any actual wrong doing.
One can imply many things from a document, that tells very little, except say, a Lawyer was following the clients' explicit instructions!
We all of us have a past, and things we would do very differently, if we but had our time over, knowing what we know now.
Should any of us be expected to pay and pay, over and over for the mistakes we made, when younger and less wise?
And some of those mistakes or lessons, have been very costly; and or, put some steel in the spine?
[They say, what doesn't kill you, just makes you stronger.]
And then we have those two exceptional press conferences, where the Prime Minister of the land, answered every legitimate question levelled at her, by at times, a patently partisan press?
I would have instructed them to go visit the nearest taxidermist!
More of the same partisan puerile muck raking here Graham? Enough already!
Evidence Graham, evidence not more of the same patently biased conjecture?
This feeding frenzy is now only harming the coalition and its prospects?
Rhrosty.

Graham has again avoided entirely any comparison with the much more significant, more recent and more damning events in which the Opposition and those institutions supporting the Opposition find themselves - the matter of James Ashby Vs former National and former Liberal, Peter Slipper and the Leader of the Opposition's involvement in setting up and operating an even more secret slush fund whose purpose was to see Pauline Hanson's political party fail and herself jailed, although subsequently both were quashed. These issues speak eloquently for the ethics and judgement of the man and his associates.

To point a finger at the PM, as this author has, about ancient history while ignoring the present and continuing rotten stench coming from the left of the Speaker's chair is extremely unbalanced and speaks volumes on the subject of whether, as Lord Levinson said in Melbourne recently and in relation to on-line scribblers "...they would start to lose their authoritative voice; if they lost that voice they would simply be one more online purveyor of gossip with the attendant loss of influence which that would entail."

This article has done nothing to enhance the reputation and influence of either the author or of OLO.

Abbott's only agenda is to bring down a govt; by fair means or foul.
Slipper, Thomson, Gillard.
I can't believe the AU people can be stupid enough to fall for the tactics of a kangaroo court.
Thomson, slipper, Gillard have been charged with nothing.
It's all innuendo, and trash politics.
All of this and not one policy from Abbott and his team of pit-bulls.

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2012/2012fca1411

The above is the full judgement in the Ashby-Slipper case. It's definitely worth taking the time to peruse.

Questions over Gillard's so-called lack of integrity pale in comparison to the shenanigans outlined in the judgment.

I think that one of the reasons so many people are somewhat ambivalent is that the entire issue is so very complicated. Clearly the mechanisms used by Wilson and his co-accomplices were meant to deceive , so unraveling all that 20 years down the track is a forensic task. But if you read the evidence from Smith and Thomas carefully, it is almost impossible to conclude other than that there was deliberate fraud aplenty. There may not yet be a 'smoking gun' but the acrid odor of gunpowder abounds.

The only question is who exactly were the criminals and who were the victims. Indeed the WA police concluded that a fraud had been perpetrated but they couldn't find a victim willing to lodge a complaint.

We are safe in saying that Wilson and Blewitt were implicated since they've virtually owned up. But whether Gillard was duped or was an active participant is unclear. It would be nice to think that, if she did get a new bathroom and the odd $5k gift, that there would be some consequences but that's not the main game.

What I find to be of more immediate concern is how the events from those times affect us now. We have people who were trying to get at the truth then now placed in positions of power and, if not silenced, at least silent. We have journalists sacked for seeking the truth. How much did all that occurred back then affect the reactions to the HSU issue and how much were the attempts to protect Williamson/ Thompson consequent on who knew what about the AWU scandal? Given that so many players in the AWU issue were also players and/or beneficiaries in the overthrow of Rudd, what if any, were the links between the two?

cont.....

cont....

I think its inevitable that the Libs, if elected next year, will set up a Royal Commission into the AWU/HSU/et al corruption. If there is to be a double dissolution election in 2014 then the Libs would love to see the papers full of the latest revelation from such an inquiry. So its my estimation that something close to the whole truth will come out at some point over the next few years.

But the most annoying aspect to this whole episode is the simple hypocrisy of those involved. Indisputably, union funds were lost or stolen. Funeral funds were lost or stolen. Yet these people who piously tell us that their entire raison d'etre is the welfare of the working man and union members, are actively opposed to tracking down those funds or identifying the perpetrators.

So as usual the Libs will have to do their dirty work for them.Watch this space.

'Questions over Gillard's so-called lack of integrity pale in comparison to the shenanigans outlined in the judgment '

Please Poirot take your glasses off just for a moment. Don't mix up legal jargon with obvious character flaws.

Democracy at work Runner, or don't you religous fundamentalists believe in democracy.

Now that their complicity in the Ashby claim is becoming more apparent, the next problem for the Libs will be explaining their role in the Thomson affair and finally a "test of character" for Abbott himself when he explains his role is establishing his own "slush fund" to attack One Nation and the blatant lies he was caught out on afterwards.

Who were the 12 "faceless donors" and what happened to the money?

An investigation into the subsequent political influence placed onto the Australian Electoral Commission not to pursue this matter could also be warranted.

This is typical of their sleazy strategy but they can't hide behind their media cronies forever.

All the proven and documented facts about these matters may not be mentioned in the Main Stream Media but others have been known in the blogosphere for months.

Abbott's gloss is starting to wear off and it's time people reconsidered allowing these lying, conniving and unprincipled thugs to take over the running of the country.

Gillard may indeed lose the next election but she owes it to the nation to expose the whole truth about the alternative, particularly if she has nothing left to lose.

Here we go again, nothing learnt from the last 2 elections being run by silly focus groups.

Enough already, Gillard was not in the AWU you nongs, therefore she could not get any damn money from the so-called fund.

Graham Young's account tells what his survey said about public reaction, and his necessarily quick surveys of the shifting scene are a uniquely valuable contribution to Australian life.

Because the surveys are put together rapidly, and because they have to follow the narrative of previous surveys, their results may occasionally be misleading.

Surveying whether respondents thought Gillard did wrong or did right back in 1993 can miss the point that respondents simply don't know because they don't know the facts.

One thing everyone does know, and to which we all need to give careful thought in considering the credentials of the Opposition, is that a decade after the AWU triviality the government in which the current Opposition were implicated up to their necks LIED OUR COUNTRY INTO WAR. Maybe the current government holds back on shouting that from the housetops because Kevin Rudd publicly echoed the same lies though stopping short of demanding aggression.

And now their Ashby-Slipper lies are seeing the light of day.

runner,

I can assure you that if you take the time to read the judgment, you will find that most of it is easy to follow and devoid of legal jargon.

Poirot

'I can assure you that if you take the time to read the judgment, you will find that most of it is easy to follow and devoid of legal jargon. '

and so Slippers vile text messages were made up I take it? Strange how you feminist ignore misogyny when it suits your cause. We should not be surprised by the feminist double standards being displayed. Ms Gillard has displayed this quality consistently.

runner,

Instead of calling me names, why don't you read the judgment?

I know you're getting all hot and bothered over the "vile text messages" (as is your wont), but really that's only the curtain raiser - the rest of the film is much more fascinating.

" The opposition has failed to demonstrate that the prime minister's behaviour has any bearing on the current policy or performance of her government and voters want to know why they wasted a week for no return."
Perhaps fewer supporters would have remained rusted on had the ABC and the Fairfax Press chosen to publicise the recent revelations of how Julia Gillard acted immorally, unethically, unprofessionally and deviously while performing 'professional' legal work for the AWU in the early 1990s.
Those who remain unfamiliar with her behaviour , should become better informed by accessing Hedley Thomas' article, "Information at hand for a sharp, short judicial inquiry", at:
• http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/information-at-hand-for-a-sharp-short-judicial-inquiry/story-fn6tcs23-1226527783338
The revelations certainly have not improved her reputation. It remains to be seen whether sufficient voters place their trust in the party she leads at the forthcoming election

I love how JonBennetts pillories GY for mentioning the AWU scandal without mentioning the Slipper Judgement.

Here's why: The judgement only came out after GY's article.

Secondly what all the left whingers now popping out to sanctimoniously condemn the coalition forget is:
1 It was all completely legal,
2 Nothing it unearthed about Slipper was untrue,
3 No sitting MP from the coalition was directly involved,
4 Nicola Roxon acted shamefully abusing her postion,

And last but not least, Juliar started all this by buying Slipper's vote with the cash and benefits of the Speaker's chair.

Labor comes out of this covered in excrement far more than the coalition, and it was all started by unethical action by Labor. Slipper just got what he deserved.

"Slipper just got what he deserved."

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2012/2012fca1411

"...application for proceedings to be dismissed or stayed as an abuse of process....-categories of abuse of process not closed - where allegations made in pleading for predominant purpose of a political attack to advance maker's own interests - where some allegations made were irrelevant, scandalous or calculated to injure - where applicant's lawyer responsible for impugned allegations - where applicant and lawyer intended or aware that media would obtain a copy of pleading and publish allegations made in it."
(First paragraph summary - much more detail in the body of the judgement)

"Slipper just got what he deserved."

Wow, SM, - all just fine and dandy then?

You reckon this is the way to do things?

Some comments on the assertions about Ms Gillard and the AWU:
1. The PM apparently did some legal work without opening a file. I think I’ve done this in every one of my 31 years as a solicitor. It usually happens when you do something trivial for which you will not make a charge. The fact that some of the incorporation forms were filled in by hand is an indicator of something quite minor.
Office procedures were much slacker in the early 90s. Don't know about Slater & Gordon, but in the firms in which I worked at that time, the people most prone to breaching the firm’s rules were its partners.
2. Re the 'slush fund'. I was involved in Labor circles from 1977 to about 1991 in Sydney. I had a friend who was a low level union official. One day in the early 80s he referred to a slush fund. I expressed concern. He explained it was an officers re-election fund, into which the union officials deposited a portion of their salary in case they were challenged at the next union officials. When I asked him why call it a slush fund when it's quite legitimate, he just shrugged. The stupid thing was that the term was used in two senses - one to denote a fund involving some dishonesty or illegality, the other to denote an unofficial or undeclared fund involving no dishonesty. Everyone suspected their opponent’s fund was underhand.
3. In the Sydney Morning Herald about a week ago there was a report based on Brandeis’ statements which indicated she attached documents to a letter which said another purpose of the fund was to support union officials who supported the association’s goals. If that's right, she did disclose the true position to the authorities.
4. Ms Gillard would only have done the wrong thing if she knowingly misrepresented something. I can’t see any proof of that.
5. If her partner was doing something wrong, it would have been stupid of him to tell her. This supports an innocent interpretation of her conduct.

Hi Graham,

I think your conclusions relating to voter sentiment over the AWU issues are correct. I don’t think, at this stage, it will change much in the voting intentions. I suspect that many have already made up their minds, many have simply disengaged and the battle will be over Greens/other preference votes which are currently polling at 22. (11 Green/11 Other)

The Greens suffered a 6% swing against them on home turf in Canberra and there are a number of independents who seem unlikely at this stage to hold their seats, Slipper, Oakeshot, Windsor, Thomson and possibly Wilkie, who got up on LNP preferences.

It seems unlikely that there will be enough preferences to swing quite a few seats in the governments favor. Following the NSW and QLD state elections, it seems that the 2010 preference flows, upon which the various polls are qualified, will be dramatically changed.

In the end the AWU affair is not likely to bring down the government, I agree. It is not (yet) a powerful enough political issue. That said the investigations by police and other authorities seem to be going at a pace, huge quantities of evidence have already been collected, a formal notification of an alleged indictable offence has been vetted by a QC and sent to the Vic. Police commissioner. The affidavit and contemporaneous diaries from Ian Cambridge are in the public domain, statements have been provided by Bob Kernohan, Ralph Blewitt and Wayne Hem.

If this evidence gets traction and the Vic/WA police and their current round of informal interviews turn to open investigations as seems likely, B. Wilson will be next and more little squealers are likely to emerge, momentum will grow. Again this in itself seems unlikely to cause the government to implode, but it will make an awful mess of the ALP’s election campaign and I think that’s all it needs to do.

I think it would be foolish of the government to conclude that a majority of Australians don’t care, but I encourage you to promote that thinking

Poirot says:

"Questions over Gillard's so-called lack of integrity pale in comparison to the shenanigans outlined in the judgment."

Not true.

First I agree with the judgement of Rares J. It is plain from a forensic analysis of the evidence and reasonable deductions from same that Ashby and his partner, Doane, were opportunists. One can only hope they learn wisdom from queuing at Centrelink.

There will also be consequences for lawyer Harmer.

Regrettably Brough's political resurgence will be tainted, which is a pity since he did good work with indigenous folk.

None of this vitiates the reasonable conclusion that Slipper is an uncouth, sexist spendthrift.

It also has no bearing on where the PM stands with the cogent complaints gainst her which have been partially described here:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14428

No serious attempt to defend these complaints were made with only serial supporter of the PM, Alan Austin making a spurious attempt by resorting to the fractal approach; that is, inventing or assuming a defect, in this case a distinction between the association and a bank account, and expanding on it. This is merely sophistry 101.

If that is the best defence which can be brought in favour of the PM, and since Austin created it, one has to assume so, then one can only hope when and if the PM is before a court that she is before a black letter, no nonsense jurist like Rares J

While I am no fan of Gillard and her labor party, I must admit, something that happened 20 odd years ago is hardly goimg to effect her performance today.

Let's face it, we send criminals to prison and, once they have served their term, they are released and at least expected to be accepted into society, so what's the difference.

I feel there are far more serious issues that need addressing than this, such as the illegals debarcle, which, if not stopped, or at leased, well managed, has the potential to break us as a nation, or at the very least rob us of many of the services we worked hard for and paid taxes to fund.

Dear Philip Howell,

An interesting comparison from your legal perspective but I would have to assume that you have not read the copious documentation available; otherwise your response would not have been so trivial or ill informed.

Were you ever the subject of a secret investigation by your senior partners whilst on leave?

Were you ever the subject of a tape recorded exit interview that had a record of transcript retained by those partners?

Were you placed in a position where you had to tender you resignation and have it accepted without further discussion?

We don’t know for sure what was allegedly done by Gillard but fortunately we have comments on the public record from a very senior partner at Slater and Gordon, Nick Styant-Brown, who along with Peter Gordon, conducted that exit interview.

He says, “the story had some traction”, “that it could rebound to us in a very unhappy way”, he “refused to endorse a draft that he believed exonerated Gillard”, he “could no longer hide what he knew of the AWU scandal and Gillard's actions”, accused S&G “of protecting and hiding adverse material at all costs”, said “I'm just not prepared to be party to a public record about what happened that is false”, said ” I would not be seen by my silence to go along with, a whitewash of what happened”.

Clearly your interpretation or lack of facts is significantly at odds with the opinions of S&G’s senior partners at that time.

I think I’ll stick with the legal opinion of one of Australia’s most prominent lawyers if that’s OK with you.

As to your comments about senior partners being “the people most prone to breaching the firm’s rules”. It seems you are right as S&G also failed to notify their client, the real AWU or the authorities of the alleged illegal activities of which they had just become aware. They kept quiet for some eight months from Sept. 1995 until May 1996.

You have much reading to do. Were you with S&G by any chance?

Always when there is criminality pointing at the establishment which Gillard and her party represent,there will be a reluctance to do an investigation since other skeletons may be found for both sides of parliament to address.

What Police offical will stake their career and reputation on a real investigation just to see it all quashed by some judge or public official?

Julia Gillard has not addressed the facts and still refuses the answer detailed questions on her involvement in this seedy affair.What conclusions can thinking people reach?

Labor know that the public has a short memory and most of the electorate are incapable of critical independant analysis of anything with more than two variables,so all they have to do is wait and wear us down with more BS.

Poirot,

You so easily forget that Slipper cheerfully sold his vote to Labor, and has been happily squandering tax payer's money on himself in record amounts with the full knowledge of Juliar and the Labor caucus.

As I said previously, none of this was illegal. The judge could have stopped this at any time, but there was sufficient evidence of harassment for the case to continue.

Also the cabcharge fraud investigation is still on going.

SM is in charge of the kangaroo court, the cab charge fraud. If it was a fraud why the investigation. The case has been solved.

579,

"The case has been solved." Really? How do you know this, and why does no one else?

why doesn't anybody talk about our $50,000 Roxon gave to Ashby ... as settlement of his claim?

Does the Government still think Slipper guilty?

That was for the case against the commonwealth. Far removed from slipper.

The story as portrayed suggests that –

1. Slipper offered Ashby a job and employed him from 23/12/2011.
2. When he was working for Slipper, Ashby was sexually harassed by Slipper.

The actual details of this scenario are –

1. Ashby first met Slipper in July 2011 as a mutual friend of LNP Minister Mark McArdle and they later meet socially.
2. Ashby was critical of Brough and others seen to be working against Slipper and asks for advice about starting a political career .
3. Ashby exchanged most of those particularly suggestive texts with Slipper from OCTOBER 2011 and appeared comfortable with this aspect of their relationship.
4. Slipper mentions the possibility of offering Ashby a job in October, replacing his former press advisor who was leaving in November.
5. Slipper became Speaker in November 2011 and Ashby began working for Slipper from DECEMBER 10th 2011.
6. Meanwhile Ashby is secretly in communication with Brough, Pyne, McArdle and others behind Slipper’s back and leaks Slipper diary details to Brough and News Ltd journo Steve Lewis (of Godwin Grech fame).
7. Pyne meets with Ashby at least 3 times and Pyne is caught out lying about each meeting.
8. The LNP arranges Harmer’s Lawyers (of Kathy Jackson fame) to provide legal aid for Ashby for $1.
9. Ashby gives Lewis all his text messages and they meet on 10th April 2012 (News Ltd pay for his Hotel room).
10. Harassment accusation lodged on April 20th and the story is published the next day.

Ashby’s harassment claim seems no more than a vehicle for the LNP to attack Slipper professionally and he was probably just a stooge in the whole matter.

To suggest that the LNP were simply innocent bystanders and not heavily involved is plainly ridiculous.

Abbott’s suggestion that he knew nothing until April 21st while Pyne and others were making all these arrangements on Ashby’s behalf is typically dishonest.

Ashby is finished in politics and financially and perhaps he will yet turn on his “sponsors”, as he has done before.

In any case the story is not over yet.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-14/abbott-denies-slipper-conspiracy/4427424

"...Mr Abbott has defended his candidate's role in the legal case,saying Mr Brough has been "quite transparent and up front" about his involvement, and there is no conspiracy here."

From the judgment:

"...Mr Ashby and Ms Doane had decided by 29 march 2012 that Mr Ashby would make allegations of sexual harassment in legal proceedings against Mr Slipper and would assist Mr Brough and Mr Lewis to damage Mr Slipper in the public eye and political arena with any information they could find including using the requested diary entries together with any proceedings...over the previous six months Mr Ashby had described Mr Brough to Mr Slipper in the most foul terms. He had also been considerably unflattering about Mr Lewis. Yet by 29 March 2012, Mr Ashby had confided in Mr Slipper's political foe, Mr Brough, about being harassed by Mr Slipper and sought Mr Brough's help in obtaining a lawyer. Moreover, within a day or so Mr Ashby and Ms Doane were providing Mr Brough and Mr Lewis with copies of Mr Slipper's diaries..."

if Ashby was female no one including the judge would dare suggest its a setup. Come on guys its all a game.

runner,

Ms Doane is a female - she gets a guernsey in the judgment.

(From the judgment:)

"...Mr Ashby acted in combination with Ms Doane and Mr Brough when commencing the proceedings in order to advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough...."

"...Mr Ashby and Ms Doane set out to use the proceedings as part of their means to enhance or promote their prospects of advancement or preferment by the LNP, including by using Mr Brough to assist them in doing so..."

"...As Mr Ashby and Ms Doane agreed in their texts of 30 March 2012 what they were doing "will tip the govt to Mal's [Brough] and the LNP's advantage"..."

It's not a case of gender wars.

Another fine (runner) theory bites the dust.

Next....

"That was for the case against the commonwealth. Far removed from slipper."

Completely stupid comment. The Commonwealth was and is Slipper's employer; it is common to lodge claims against 2 defendants such as the employer and an agent of the employer.

As noted the Commonwealth paid Ashby $50,000, a substantial sum for this sort of complaint. That is, prima facie, an admission of guilt which Rares J. ignored.

During the action between Ashby and the Commonwealth Roxon commented continually, a disgraceful and tawdry display by an A-G who has no respect for the process. Again Rares J. made no reference to this but focused on Brough's political based interference.

As I said above there is no doubt Ashby has fouled his own case; and when will members of the Coalition ever learn about dealing with these types?

Having said that and after rereading the case I think there is an arguable basis for appealing on the basis that Rares J. relied too heavily on the political context to dismiss the substantive claim of sexual harrassment.

While it is clear that Ashby was creating a political context it is also clear that Slipper was acting in a completely unacceptable manner.

Spindoc, questions raised by your pertinent points: If Julia Gillard "did nothing wrong" as she claims, why did she have to tender her resignation from Slater and Gordon? Why could Styant-Brown no longer hide what he knew of the AWU scandal and Gillard's actions?

As Hedley Thomas of The Australian observed, " Gillard's failure to open a file in relation to her legal work to help incorporate the association meant that for three years nobody else in the firm knew anything about it. Further, Gillard did not consult any of the other partners about her work that led to the incorporation of the association, notwithstanding the expertise of her colleagues in the area. ...
... there was a failure to inform the WA commissioner for corporate affairs, the public servant in Perth who was responsible in 1992 for ensuring people seeking to register entities were not attempting to sow the seeds of a scam. The commissioner never knew what Gillard and her clients (Wilson and Blewitt) always knew - that the association was a union slush fund."

Cohenite,

The Commonwealth payout to Ashby was made as a result of legal advice regarding possible risk and likely escalating costs for the taxpayer and was declared NOT to be an admission of guilt as is typical in such cases.

Ashby now has to pay Slipper’s legal costs as well and these will be far in excess of $50,000.

How could Ashby claim harassment if the texts were made BEFORE he was Slipper’s employee and the fact that he asked Slipper for a job while the texts were being sent. Ashby’s own texts were equally offensive.

Ashby was working as "a double agent" for the political benefit of Brough and to further his own interests.

Why would he risk a $150,000 pa job - just a couple of months old - for a likely payment of about $40,000 unless he was given assurances of future employment by somebody else?

If Slipper was behaving in an unacceptable manner, he was also doing so while under the protection and the defence of the Liberal Party for several years beforehand.

The only thing that changed was suddenly Brough was looking for a safe seat and Slipper's was nominated by the Liberal Executive so Slipper decided to take the Speaker's job.

Like "Utegate", this was a political set-up from the start.

I see that Abbott is claiming "no specific knowledge of the matter" until he saw it in the papers. Sounds like the "kids overboard" defence to me.

When you consider that Pine, Brough, Bishop and others had actively been directly consulting with Mr Ashby for some weeks prior and that the LNP was underwriting Mr Ashby's considerable legal costs that makes Abbott either a liar or just incompetent.

Now add the unlikely "time-stamp" excuse and given his track record and looseness with the truth over the years, maybe it's a bit of both.

cohenite,

I don't think it's possible to read it both ways. The political context of the "set up" is so overwhelming and the claims of sexual harassment so integral to the dupe that if one follows the machinations through, it beggars belief that Ashby was the "victim" as he claimed to be.

The judgment illuminates Ashby's involvement with Slipper prior to his appointment.

"From mid 2011 Mr Ashby began providing voluntary assistance to Mr Slipper in managing the media.

From mid-October 2011 until April 2012, Mr Ashby fostered beliefs in Mr Slipper that they were friends
Mr Ashby supported him politically, had his interests at heart and opposed Brough....

Mr Ashby frankly discussed his homosexuality with him and engaged in light hearted banter that occasionally contained sexual comments;"

One of Slipper's first points of claim was that Ashby had taken no steps to address the so-called harassment.

"(i) no steps of any kind had been taken by Ashby to raise or resolve any dispute with Slipper prior to the dissemination of the allegations...."

The text messages from Ashby to his friends display no hint of distress from harassment.

From the judgment:

"What is singular about all of the text message exchanges that Mr Ashby had with friends in the period prior to the commencement of these proceedings is the lack of complaint by him of feeling sexually harassed. And his friend's texts had no words of comfort for Mr Ashby as a victim of some traumatic experience of that kind....Rather they read as if the participants were discussing the political ramifications of Mr Ashby revealing material that was sexually and politically embarrassing and that would compromise Mr Slipper and his position as speaker if it appeared in the public domain."

To me it's the timing that's important.

Ashby appears to have no problems with the flow or content of text messages for two months prior to him accepting employment with Slipper.

To complain retrospectively about harassment is like buying a house near a runway airport and then complaining about the noise.

The other timing factor is that Ashby initially won Slipper's confidence by stating that he "couldn't stand" Brough and later repeated that claim while he was actively working for Brough behind the scenes.

So when does stealing and distributing personal diary entries stop becoming "advice" and start becoming a conspiracy?

Poirot,

In the work place, if I was found to have sent texts of that nature to an employee, I would be immediately dismissed, irrespective of whether the employee had complained or not. Let alone the rorting of expenses and the cabcharge fraud.

However, it appears that criminality is a cause for promotion not dismissal in Labor / union ranks.

Sexual harrassment is an objective standard; it does not matter if the alleged victim was capable of dealing with it or not; it does not matter if the alleged victim at times seemed to encourage it and at other times rebutted the overtures.

The harrassment intensified after Ashby's employment and what happened before that employment is not relevant except it goes to Ashby's character or lack thereof.

The defence seems to be that Ashby somehow 'entrapped' Slipper and was dealing with Brough and the media while it was happening; does that change the fact that it happened?

If persons of questionable character were prevented from claiming harrassment or even sexual assault [which is not claimed here] then for instance prostitutes would never be able to claim.

I think Rares J. has been influenced by Ashby's charcter here and on the law may have erred.

We'll see if there is an appeal.

cohenite,

That's interesting what you say...(being as you're a lawyer and I'm not)

It doesn't seem to me that the judge was deciding merely on Ashby's character. It seems he was guided by Ashby's behaviour in conjunction with the overarching scenario that was revealed by unravelling the sequence of events.

That the smutty talk was mutual, and that it had been formed prior to Ashby accepting the appointment is integral to that point. Why would Ashby accept an appointment from someone who "he knew" engaged in that kind of dialogue - if he had a problem with it? The fact that Ashby himself joined in with smutty and abusive talk further diminishes his claim.

From the judgment:

"...The texts demonstrated that Mr Ashby had no difficulty whatsoever in firmly putting forward his point of view, and in refusing to accept instructions from Mr Slipper on matters to do with Mr Ashby's conduct, even though that conduct may have impacted, or been seen to impact on Mr Slipper's public position....

The point of these exchanges which come most powerfully across was that Mr Ashby felt not the slightest inhibition in putting Mr Slipper in, what Mr Ashby considered, his place. It is difficult to believe that while Mr Ashby felt no inhibition in firmly and forcefully insisting that he was entitled to engage in political activities where Mr Slipper sought to restrain him from doing so, Mr Ashby would have felt inhibited in complaining to Mr Slipper about other conduct that he, Mr Ashby, did not appreciate. The contemporaneous documents in evidence do not reveal that Mr Ashby felt or expressed to Mr slipper or any of his friends any such inhibitions or any distress occasioned by the conduct he complained of in his origination application...."

Poirot,

Put to one side the why's and wherefores of the Slipper/Ashby affair for a minute, and concentrate on the larger picture of rorts and dishonesty within a government with 'faceless men' [should we call them previous union members?] using their positions to so blatantly abuse the trust we are asked to place in them. Lies and obfuscation comes daily from the top down.

One has to wonder also when JG will run out of derogatory terms for those members of the opposition who have the temerity to put forward a question she would rather duck than answer. She demeans not only her office, but also her person with offensive and personal hectoring rather than answering legitimate questions put to her.

Juvenile schoolyard bully tactics should have no place in politics.

worldwatcher,

Are you suggesting that the behaviour of the opposition in pursuing "government business" on behalf of Australians has been any better than that demonstrated by the government?

As far as I can see, members on both sides of politics are more interested in hectoring each other in a point scoring competition than they are in representing the electorates that put them there.

Wait until the election looms, when both sides will be vying for who can institute the most effective middle-class pork barrel.

Shadow Minister,

You're right - Gillard started this farce. Quite a clever ploy on her part. It has distracted voters enough to become weary of this tragi/comedy farce. It has also deflected their focus from all the bad decisions made by this government.

From previous posts and comments it would appear that the populace has concerns about the effects of present policies.

Live sheep exports, illegal immigration and it's escalating costs , plus the future of our economy, and effect on families are the four top topics which appear to be of lesser concern to Labour than attempting to win the next election.

The rise in costs since the Carbon Tax was introduced has not gone unnoticed by many of us. A dollar here, a few there, and they add up considerably to a higher total cost of living. It is with dismay that every week I see small retailers and large companies closing down. It's across the board. When the employers fail, the people they employ have very uncertain futures in this tight job market. We have lost our title of "the Lucky Country".

Do you mean this "Lucky Country?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Country

"Horne's statement was made ironically as an indictment of 1960's Australia. His intent was to comment that, while other industrial nations created wealth using "clever" means such as technology and other innovations, Australia did not. Australia's prosperity was largely derived from its rich natural resources. Horne observed that Australia "showed less enterprise than almost any other prosperous industrial society.""

Nothing's changed.

Poirot,

Read my post to the SM.

Have to agree, JG cleverly suckered the opposition there didn't she?

Labelling TA as a mysogynist whether true or not, was a brilliant move, and it worked for her and against her too.

There have been many great well respected women leaders who have executed their positions suberbly and with their country's welfare at heart, while displaying dignity at all times.

And then we have Julia. Enough said?

Poirot

The term "This Lucky Country" may have been initially used with irony, but has since been used by many Australians who honestly have felt they were lucky to live here.

Since the '60s we have gradually diversified. Would you say we now enjoy the increased benefits which should be the result of that?

Must say I enjoyed the simpler times, and sure wasn't as stressed as I am these days. BTW, we didn't have to pay $80.00 per kilo for King George whiting then - we caught our own. Can't afford to run a boat any more. Price of oil too high. Will have to make do with what we can catch beach fishing - if there are any fish still around.

Re: simpler times...well you can't blame the Labor Party for that - globalisation, the free market and technology have delivered in that respect.

Poirot, "From the judgment:

'...The texts demonstrated that Mr Ashby had no difficulty whatsoever in firmly putting forward his point of view, and in refusing to accept instructions from Mr Slipper on matters to do with Mr Ashby's conduct, even though that conduct may have impacted, or been seen to impact on Mr Slipper's public position....

The point of these exchanges which come most powerfully across was that Mr Ashby felt not the slightest inhibition in putting Mr Slipper in, what Mr Ashby considered, his place. It is difficult to believe that while Mr Ashby felt no inhibition in firmly and forcefully insisting that he was entitled to engage in political activities where Mr Slipper sought to restrain him from doing so, Mr Ashby would have felt inhibited in complaining to Mr Slipper about other conduct that he, Mr Ashby, did not appreciate. The contemporaneous documents in evidence do not reveal that Mr Ashby felt or expressed to Mr slipper or any of his friends any such inhibitions or any distress occasioned by the conduct he complained of in his origination application....'"

It is hard to believe that a similar judgement made in respect of a woman employee would not result in a storm of protest.

Not arguing either way, just noting that sauce for the goose is not always sauce for the gander.

The texts were not sent to an employee - Ashby was not an employee when they were sent.

The text content was mutual and was never expressed to be disagreeable or offensive.

The judge called it as he saw it and explained the reasons for his decision.

There was no workplace harassment and no complaint was submitted until it was co-announced in the media and by Liberal Press Release.

There was however, a level of political interference which technically makes it a conspiracy.

This event has nothing to do with the ALP but everything to do with the QLD National Party and probably the Federal Liberal Party and no amount of straw man obfuscation will change that fact.

Abbott whines about this being a "witch hunt" but in other circumstances will say that people "are entitled to know the truth".

Well so be it.

You open with the line, "The Prime Minister says she has "done nothing wrong", but it seems that hardly any Australians accept that," yet the only way to interpret your statistics is that 51% of Australians do accept that. Only 49% disapprove of her actions in the affair: only 49% think she might have done something wrong.

I was one of those who completed the poll and picked "neither approve nor disapprove", I picked that because there seems to be nothing in the allegations: she did nothing wrong and there is nothing in her performance surround these events in her past job that is relevant to her current position, so there is nothing to approve or disapprove of.

Rhyme,

The Prime Minister says she has done nothing wrong. In reality she is claiming to have committed no crime.

It is unlikely that she was forced to leave Gordon and Slater because her behaviour was completely acceptable.

Rhyme says:

"she did nothing wrong and there is nothing in her performance surround these events in her past job that is relevant to her current position, so there is nothing to approve or disapprove of."

The Tinkerbell defence.

I bet you're one of the many women who Summers says admires the PM; I bet you also think that Abbott is a misogynist; and that magic happens.

In short you're another good example of why voting shouldn't be compulsory.

The Gillard "forced to resign" claim seems to have taken on a life of it's own.

The managing director of Slater and Gordon, Andrew Grech, says Gillard took leave from the firm to campaign for the Senate in 1995 and resigned the following year when she took up a position as a political advisor.

It's only Nick Styant-Browne who claims otherwise.

The best man at Styant-Browne's wedding just happened to be Mark Baker, the editor-at-large of The Age newspaper.

He is also a former foe of both Gillard well as her former mentor at the firm and now Federal Court judge, Bernard Murphy.

If you're as obsessed with conspiratorial links (as many appear to be here )-

Nick Styant-Browne’s brother is Tony Styant-Browne.
Tony’s son is Oliver Styant-Browne.
Oliver’s partner is Kylie Moreland.
Kylie’s sister is Helen Moreland.
Helen Moreland is Abbott’s social policy adviser.

The chief justice of the kangaroo court SM is never wrong, and can not be persuaded otherwise.

Given all the questions raised about her performance in her past job, her refusal to answer questions in parliament, and her claim that she has done nothing wrong, the honourable thing to do would be to stand aside while a short, sharp judicial inquiry is held into the AWU scandal, as her wish that the thing will just go away is unlikely to be realised.

Rache,

And I suppose her "leave" starting directly after her inquiry is a pure coincidence?

rache says:

"Nick Styant-Browne’s brother is Tony Styant-Browne.
Tony’s son is Oliver Styant-Browne.
Oliver’s partner is Kylie Moreland.
Kylie’s sister is Helen Moreland.
Helen Moreland is Abbott’s social policy adviser."

Very good, now do one for the number of married man the PM has had affairs with, and one for the number of Judges in the Federal court and Fair Work Commission who have had had 'contact' with the PM.

Poirot, I repeat sexual harrassment is an objective standard; the character defects of the complainant are irrelevant; the political context is irrelevant; the ability of the complainant to 'cop' the alleged harrassment is irrelevant.

Also the alleged harrassment continued and intensified after Ashby's employment.

As a woman, Poirot, would you have put up with Slipper?

cohenite,

I wouldn't have volunteered my services if I'd had a problem with Slipper's conduct.

I wouldn't have accepted an appointment if I'd had a problem with Slipper's conduct.

...and I certainly wouldn't have joined in with smutty and abusive dialogue with Mr Slipper if I didn't approve of such conduct.

Poirot,

Well the weasel is out, and couldn't win an election for dog catcher in his electorate.

Now it is time for the red haired weasel No 1 to face the music for lying about pretty much everything.

"And I suppose her "leave" starting directly after her inquiry is a pure coincidence?"

It's as coincidental as alleging a faulty "Time-Stamp" on a Press Release and having the claim shot down by another Shadow Minister the very next day or any of the other series of well-documented Abbott lies.

It's way past the put-up or shut-up period. I think I know who will have the upper hand when Parliament resumes in the new year.

cohenite,

It doesn't explain why Ashby would even accept (and in fact request) a job with Slipper when he already knew what Slipper was like.

From the content of the text messages he was no better and encouraged a lot of what was being said.

It will be more interesting to see who picks up the tab for the costs, now that his LNP sponsors have no further use of his "services".

If character is anything to go by, Ashby is just as likely to make some comfortable admissions of his own before this is all done.

Then we can move onto who funded Kathy Jackson's costs in her accusations against Craig Thomson.

What? The same lawyers? Acting pro-bono as well? Well goodness me!

And the Shadow Ministers sniffing around that case? Pyne? Brandis?
Gosh again!

And who had "no specific knowledge?"
Abbott?

Who would have guessed.

Geez rache, now you're defending Thomson; is there any one you won't defend?

Your little 6 degrees of seperation was amusing but I see you haven't taken up my challenge; here's something to kick you off:

When Julia Gillard, Slater and Gordon and the AWU each went their separate ways who took over the AWU’s legal interests for its new law firm, Maurice Blackburn:

Nicola Roxon.

Who is a former National Secretary of the AWU?

Bill Shorten.

Who had an extra marital affair with Nicola Roxon?

Bill Shorten.

Who backed Gillard’s assassination of Rudd?

Bill Shorten.

Who said she would refuse to serve in a Rudd cabinet?

Nicola Roxon.

Who was deposed as Attorney General after trying to investigate the AWU scandal.

Robert McClelland.

Who replaced him?

Nicola Roxon.

Who has stated she is satisfied Gillard has done no wrong?

Nicola Roxon.

What do Gillard and Roxon have in common?

Both are former solicitors. Both worked on the AWU slush fund debacle. Both had affairs with married officials of the AWU. Both are senior members of this Goverment. Both have had affairs with married Ministers of this government. Both belong to Emily’s list. Both entered Parliament in 1998.

Besides the Labor affairs listed by Cohenite, others included Julia Gillard and Craig Emerson, and Penny Wong and Jay Weatherill .

The current federal government is entitled to be called the most decadent since Federation.

More grist for the mill!

According to The Australian of 19 December, Terry O'Connor QC, "the former head of Western Australia's anti-corruption watchdog believes Julia Gillard may have breached two sections of the state's law through her role in providing legal advice for the incorporation of an association her then boyfriend later used as cover for a fraud."

"He notes a section of the act that says associations applying for incorporation needed to have more than five members when, in fact, the AWU Workplace Reform Association had two."

O'Connor said there had been no explanation from Blewitt, Wilson or Gillard about why its real purpose was not set out in the documents.

"He said Blewitt as the applicant could have been charged with knowingly giving false information to the Corporate Affairs Commissioner "as he was aware that the objects set out in the rules were not the true object of the association and that the certification in the formal application was false". "Without some explanation from (Ms Gillard) as to what occurred, there is in my opinion a prima facie case that she could have been charged along with Mr Blewitt as she drafted the rules of the association for Mr Blewitt knowing that the rules did not disclose the purpose for which the association was being incorporated", Mr O'Connor writes."

Wow! Roxon and Shorten had an extramarital affair?

Got any links or other sources to prove that? I'm sure his mother-in-law (the Governer General) wouldn't have been too keen on swearing him in as a Minister.

(Psst. I've heard that Gillard went to the same Kenyan school as Obama when they were kids).

Juliar and Roxon may have slept around, but it is the voters that got screwed.