Good morning all,

@SPQR: Re ”Julia is a saint”.

Hmmm. Not sure what you mean, SP. The only reference to the PM in the article was this:

“(b) specific promises which turn out impossible to deliver due to external factors, such as Julia Gillard's carbon tax commitment stymied by the hung Parliament,”

And then this:

“Commitments (a), (b) and (c), above, are thorny ethical issues. They certainly warrant scrutiny and criticism where appropriate.”

It was R0bert who introduced Ms Gillard into the subsequent discussion. And then Cohenite who raised the matter of the AWU. But I’m always happy to respond to questions, even if a bit off topic.

@cohenite: Yes and no.

My defence here is of truth telling and fact checking, not of Ms Gillard.

On the AWU matter I find I’m with the majority of reputable, neutral mainstream journalists – Jon Faine, Laurie Oakes, Phillip Coorey, Laura Tingle, Mark Skulley, Michelle Grattan and quite a number of others.

We are waiting to see if any evidence emerges of any wrongdoing. So far, plenty of smear, but no actual evidence.

Regarding your five questions, Anthony, associations are actually registered by the registrar of incorporated associations. Not by the lawyer advising the applicants. Nor by the person who filled out the form. Not even when they are the same person.

When the Jimminy Cricketers’ slush fund was later used for wine tasting ventures into the Yarra Valley instead of the specific purpose of playing cricket that was not the fault of the lawyer who advised us about incorporation, was it?

Anthony, are you seeking evidence of lies and cover-ups? If so, why?

Is it your concern that exposed liars should be disqualified from political party leadership? From parliament?

If so, do you now agree with the thrust of the original article here?

Cheers, AA