wantok raises an interesting point; Abbott did indeed set up a slush fund to try and run Hansen out of politics; like or loathe her [and I bet every defender of the PM commenting here loathes Hansen], Hansen did represent a large constituency; the coalition saw some of their constituency defecting to Hansen; they wanted to stop that; what eventually happened to Hansen, imprisonment, leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

There is however, NO equivalence between Abbott's "slush fund" and Gillard's work with the AWU association.

For instance was Abbott's fund registered? Was the registration legally done in respect of the relevant descriptions?

Gillard's association was not; end of story. Abbott's "slush fund" goes to political ethics, Gillard's involves possible criminality as has been described and not addressed by any of the defending comments here or elsewhere.

Foyle for instance makes light of the application and registration process; if it were so straightforward with ample assistance available from the Statutory body why did Gillard make such elementary mistakes like getting the purpose wrong, not making sure there were the requisite members and checking whether it contravened the rules of her primary client, the AWU, which it did. Does Foyle make such mistakes in his applications?

It is incontrovertible that Gillard knowingly put the incorrect purpose on the application. That brings the application potentially under S. 170.

The follow-up issue, which is circumstantial, is did Gillard know the association was not a slush fund either?

It is irritating that apologists ignore these important issues which are possibly tainting the highest office in the land; but then whatever it takes.

And do any of these apologists want to make a comment on what Wilson may have done with the association that Gillard set up.

I am totally unimpressed by both the argument put forward here and the prospect of further nonsense coming from our smokescreen of an Opposition.

If Tony wants to say something substantial, let him step out from behind the column of smoke and speak about the Coalition's policies, its proposed budget and its proposed front bench.

Without these, Australia has no Federal Opposition; only a smoke and noise machine.

(Yes, I know... semantics about there being no Coalition in opposition, only in government. Gives room to change anything. Reminiscent of Labor's post-election adjustments to policies re greenhouse gases and poker machines as they, too, were on the path to forming a coalition of Labor and Green. Well, if it is OK for Abbott to whinge about the changes which were needed to entice the Greens across the line, then surely he would deny - in writing - that he would do the same thing after the election, to accommodate the Nationals' perversities.)

This hullabaloo has nothing to do with what Julia Gillard did or didn't do back in the mists of time, a decade before the Howard/Abbott government's WMD lie campaign that got us into an illegal war. Malcolm Turnbull (the bloke who tried to pull the same trick as Abbott's when Kevin Rudd led the government) gloated the other day that the government would "die the death of a thousand cuts".

That's what it is about. To get rid, asap, of a government that part (but not of all) of the big end of town find to be an impediment to another shift of wealth from the many to the few.

The parliament was elected, the parliament appointed a government, and the government has been getting on with the job of governing. Ms Gillard has been keeping the show on the road. The noise is not about her character, it's about disputing the verdict of an election without waiting for the uncertainty of the next election at the due date.

An honest politician coenhite?
Now that's something I'd like to see, preferably in this lifetime!
Say like, honest John, with his, shovelled by the shipload, non core promises and the never ever GST!
And how can anyone promote as ethical or moral; vote buying, welfare for the rich?
Or the printing and delivering of flyers, falsely purporting to come from the left, and falsely alleging miscreant Muslim involvement, or some such?
And wouldn't that be an interesting juxtaposition or oxymoron?
Rhrosty.

Robert LePage,

"If we are going to prosecute/persecute a politician for having a possibly criminal past, there will not be many MPs left in the parliament."

Remaining would be mostly coalition members, with a few from the ALP and independents.

The left truly amazes me.

Last week I watched Julia Gillard refuse to answer every question put to her in Question Time, one question was put 4 times, yet you see nothing untoward in this. You are happy with the abusive language she used in the National Parliament of Australia as she dragged parliamentary conduct down to the bottom of the barrel.

It's clear that she spent many years in the nineties associating with two guys who now openly admit they were criminals possibly responsible for the siphoning of up to $1 million from the Australian Workers Union. She slept with them, she lived with them, she cooked, ate and partied with them, yet you see nothing suspicious in her actions and in her denials last week. I know nothing, I did nothing wrong she pleads!

She has supported other suspected criminals in Craig Thompson and Peter Slipper yet once again you see nothing suspicious, no possible criminality, yet when someone, such as Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop challenges and queries her about these matters on behalf of the unionists that were defrauded and the taxpayers like me who want answers you call foul and attack them as if they were the criminals.

It's a sad time in the state of this nation.