Slush fund story now 'over' says Burke

[mellie]

Gillard did make a point. The media and the sheep choose to believe a person who is an alleged criminal, not only here but in Asia also, over the primeminister's explanation. Ralph Blewitt has a huge history of scams and criminality behind him. I believe he's also being given immunity for his testimony. No surprise he's so eager to talk.

It's no wonder Gillard has difficulty performing her work - these distractions are over the top. Where's Abbott in all this? He's silent because he's got his pitbull Julie Bishop speaking on his behalf.

The general public is getting sick of this crap. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Gillard is returned next year.

The only point Gillard made was she was capable of calling a media conference to avoid having to answer the tough questions during Question Time where her lies and incompetence would have found it's way into a parliamentary hansard.



You see, the consequences for lying to the press are far less self-destructive (career wise) than attempting to do so during Question Time.

She knows this, and this is why she organised the conference to begin with.

And no, the general public are not sick of it, mostly because they know little about the affair, this and would like most of us, like to be brought up to speed and have some of these questions answered.

Mantra, she did the wrong thing, and her excuse "I don't recall" is rather pathetic.

[mellie]

When it's become apparent, our Gillard would prefer a tacky trial by media than being questioned during Question Time by members of her own parliament.

Why so evasive Mantra?

Sorry, but this is not how people with nothing to hide do business.



_____________________________

Sorry, but the victimous damsel in distress façade wont cut it this time, she will of course accuse the opposition of smearing, though ironically, when the boot is on the other foot, and it's her smearing Tony Abbott, and numerous other members of parliament both male and female, it's OK?

[mantra]

You see, the consequences for lying to the press are far less self-destructive (career wise) than attempting to do so during Question Time.

She knows this, and this is why she organised the conference to begin with.

And no, the general public are not sick of it, mostly because they know little about the affair, this and would like most of us, like to be brought up to speed and have some of these questions answered.

Mantra, she did the wrong thing, and her excuse "I don't recall" is rather pathetic.

Mel - the media is full of this rubbish. How about we get on with running the country? There is no proof that her involvement was anything other than from a legal aspect.

Where is the proof that funds were used to pay for her house? Where is the proof that $5,000 wasn't Casino money. Even Gillard has tried to retrieve the records and they've been wiped.

Where is the proof that she knew what Wilson's intentions were? I've known men in the past who have been criminals and not had the slightest clue what they were up to until they were caught. How many males confide in their g/f's. Do you think that Wilson would have told Gillard truthfully what he intended doing with the fund?

[Black Orchid]

It's no wonder Gillard has difficulty performing her work - these distractions are over the top.

If this were Abbott, Bishop or any other Liberal MP can you honestly say that you would not want answers too?

With all the hype and hysteria posted here about Abbott's budgie smugglers and alleged wall hitting 35 years ago (including a witness who saw nothing) would you consider it just a "distraction", "speculation and innuendo" and "over the top" if it were Abbott being held to account and not Gillard?

[mantra]

It's no wonder Gillard has difficulty performing her work - these distractions are over the top.

If this were Abbott, Bishop or any other Liberal MP can you honestly say that you would not want answers too?

With all the hype and hysteria posted here about Abbott's budgie smugglers and alleged wall hitting 35 years ago (including a witness who saw nothing) would you consider it just a "distraction", "speculation and innuendo" and "over the top" if it were Abbott being held to account and not Gillard?

If Abbott gets in - I will expect it. We may as well forget about anyone bothering to run this country - just have gossip pages instead. Abbott's budgie smugglers haven't made front page news for months on end, although they should. They're attrocious.

[IQS.RLOW]

You can tell its a boil about to pop when all the leftards and ALP ministers have is "nothing to see here- lets just get on with dealing with more important things. You are are all sick of this story. Listen to my voice- you are all sick of this story and want it to go away. You are all sick of this story abbottabbottabbottabbottabbott"

[mellie]

Mel - the media is full of this rubbish. How about we get on with running the country?

Funny, I don't recall Labour supporters expressing these same sentiments when the boot was on the other foot and Gillard and associates were smearing Abbott over the wall hitting incident, this and name calling during Question Time.

Tell me, why is it she only wants to "move forward" when it suits her?

If she and her colleagues had enough time and saw fit to launch an aggressive and sexist attack on Tony Abbott during Question Time, this and saw fit to dredge up his 'alleged' past, then she and colleagues have enough time to answer a few reasonable questions during Question Time about their own conduct/misconduct. Sound fair?

Double standards there Mantra, you cant have your cake and eat it too.

Sorry!

[mellie]

Moving forward -vrs- Nothing to see here folks, look the other way and move right along ...hmmm

[mantra]

Double standards there Mantra, you cant have your cake and eat it too.

Sorry!

Mel - someone has got to defend her, otherwise it would just be a RW rave here. I don't like her and where there's smoke there's usually fire, but I can't see Abbott being any better.

[Rorschach]

I of course have made the points in the following article. I'm not wanting to be repetitive. but... there are individuals here that live in denial and post nonsense in their defence of Gillard.

Gillard's evasion keeps issue alive
November 27, 2012
Mark Baker

THE Prime Minister might have devoutly wished her marathon media conference and intensive parliamentary grilling would be the last word on the AWU slush fund scandal, but her responses on two key issues have ensured her wish will not be granted.

Ms Gillard's confirmation that she was representing infamous union cronies Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt - and not the union they supposedly represented - when she advised on the setting up of the now notorious AWU Workplace Reform Association raises a rash of fresh questions about the wisdom and appropriateness of her role. She can't have it both ways and her defence falls apart whenever you scrutinise it. She cant say she was representing individuals in one breath and the AWU in the next. She can't say she didn't set up the fund in one breath then say she did in the next... well obviously she can and has... but she has no credibility because she has done exactly that.

And in refusing to deny that she wrote to WA authorities in mid-1992 vouching for the bona fides of the slush fund, Ms Gillard remains exposed to further accusations that her role was more substantial than admitted. With Gillard and her defence there are sins of omission and too many points glossed over with the oft heard " I've already dealt with that"

Indeed, Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop was hammering both issues no sooner had Ms Gillard ended her media conference with a triumphant flourish and headed straight into parliamentary question time.

As a salaried partner at Slater & Gordon in the early 1990s, Ms Gillard was both a lawyer representing the AWU and the girlfriend of Mr Wilson, the union's WA and later Victorian branch secretary.

But she made clear at her media conference that it was Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt, his successor as WA secretary, who were her clients when she advised on the incorporation of the Workplace Reform Association - from which the pair later stole in excess of $400,000.

She said the role of the association - which she has branded a slush fund but which was incorporated as a body to promote workplace safety - was to promote the pair's re-election in the union. ''Did I need to separately advise the AWU this was occurring? Of course I didn't. The people I was dealing with were elected officials of the AWU,'' she said.

That was not the view of her senior partners at Slater & Gordon, who came close to sacking her when they discovered in 1995 the work she had done without keeping a formal file or taking their advice, and not the view of the AWU national leadership who sought a royal commission when the full magnitude of the scandal was exposed in early 1996.

Ms Gillard can expect further scrutiny over her part in establishing the association after refusing to deny in Parliament that she had been instrumental in securing approval for the incorporation of the association by writing to dispel concerns of WA Corporate Affairs Commission about its bona fides.

She said the correspondence referred to in an Age report in October had not been produced ''and so it's a claim that has been made but no correspondence has been produced''.

Ms Bishop has now flagged the opposition will pursue Ms Gillard not just on the allegation of breaching AWU rules in the setting up of the association, but also for allegedly breaching the WA Associations Incorporation Act and creating a false document.

Ms Gillard defended herself by portraying Ralph Blewitt not only as the bumbling fraudster of his own admission but also as a sex fiend, an imbecile, an idiot, a stooge, a sexist pig, a liar, a crook and someone who was ''rotten to the core''.

This, of course, was the same Ralph Blewitt in whom Ms Gillard apparently saw no character issues when her legal advice was used to install him as frontman for perhaps the biggest union rort in Australian history. Exactly... and here we have the same pattern of abuse she has come to display consistently in her political life recently... always attack the man, never answer the question

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... z2DNKVwc3T" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;