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