The Forum > Article Comments > Julia Gillard has a case to answer > Comments
Julia Gillard has a case to answer : Comments
By Anthony Cox, published 3/12/2012Is there a 'criminal in the Lodge'?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- ...
- 16
- 17
- 18
-
- All
I am not a lawyer, but it seems screamingly obvious to me that Ms. Gillard engaged in unprofessional conduct, and as such is culpable because she ought to have known that she was not protecting her client, the AWU.
As I see it, Ms. Gillard was not working for S&G; she was a partner in S&G. Her duty of care was to the firm’s largest client, the AWU. The AWU was the largest union in Australia and gave the firm immense prestige. She gave her lover, Bruce Wilson, advice on how to set up a slush fund She knew it was a slush fund, and we have her own admission that it was a slush fund when she snarled on television “Everyone knew it was a slush fund!” She ought to have known that the AWU Workplace Reform Association may not be in her client’s (the AWU, the "paying" client) best interest. Therefore she has, in my opinion, been guilty of serious professional misconduct. I am surprised that she was not charged with professional misconduct at the time, and furthermore, I am surprised that she was not struck off the list of lawyers for her conduct. Perhaps she was?
As long as PM Gillard refuses to state in the House her past behavior, even in her own defence, her continued evasive behavior damns her. There is a smoking gun and the political commentators should call it.
Geoffrey Kelley