This is from the (uncorrected) Hansard:
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:41): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to her claim on 23 August that she had no involvement with the AWU workplace reform fund after she helped set it up in early 1992. I refer the Prime Minister to the power of attorney, which I have a copy of, that caries the Prime Minister’s signature as a witness on 4 February 1993 from Mr Ralph Blewett to Mr Bruce Wilson. Mr Blewett has stated publicly that he did not sign the power of attorney on that date and nor did he sign it in your presence. Did the Prime Minister witness this document in the presence of Mr Blewett and on the date nominated?
Possible answers to this question include, “Yes”, “No”, “I cannot recall”. Any answer other than “Yes”, however, is a problem. Yet all we get is a load of waffle about hypocrisy from the Prime Minister.
Then:
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:55): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to her claim on 23 August that she had no involvement in the AWU fund after helping set it up in early 1992. I refer to this article by Hedley Thomas which states that the Prime Minister and Bernard Murphy were advising Ralph Blewitt in a defamation action against AWU officials in late 1993. It says:
Mr Blewitt said the defamation action was vital to silence dissenters because if they had succeeded in ousting him the slush fund … would have been exposed …
Given the Prime Minister’s involvement in this defamation action don’t you agree that— (Time expired)
Mr Albanese: I rise on a point of order. There was no question attached to the statement within the prescribed time.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition ran out of time before she stated the question. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition could restate the question without as much argument, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: I refer to her claim on 23 August that she had no involvement in the AWU fund after setting it up in early 1992. I refer to this article by Hedley Thomas, which states that the Prime Minister and Bernard Murphy were advising Ralph Blewitt in a defamation action. The article said:Mr Blewitt said the defamation action was vital to silence dissenters because if they had succeeded in ousting him the slush fund … would have been exposed …
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will get to the question.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: Does the Prime Minister agree that this was the purpose of the action?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:57): I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has a future as a race caller, if nothing else! To the Deputy Leader of the Opposition I say that I stand by my statement of 23 August. To the opposition in general, I draw their attention to the Leader of the Opposition’s statement on 22 August, ‘In relation to these matters this is not the main game for us,’—yet another hypocritical statement from the opposition.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will recall to the question.
Ms GILLARD: On the tenor of this question and the ones that have preceded it, as question time draws to an end at the end of this sitting week, you could not have a clearer choice between a political party with a plan for the future and a party of scare and sleaze and smear. Despite the protestations of the Leader of the Opposition that he was not going to be into this, there they are full of negativity, out of ideas. Scare, sleaze and smear is all they know.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister’s involvement in the power of attorney in early 1993 and the defamation action in late 1993, how can the Prime Minister continue to—
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
Mr Albanese: I ask the member for Indi to withdraw.
The SPEAKER: The member for Indi will assist the House by withdrawing. I must admit I did not hear what the member for Indi said. For the betterment of the House, I thank the member for Indi.
Mrs Mirabella: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will commence her question again, but I am being very magnanimous. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:59): Given the Prime Minister’s involvement in the power of attorney in early 1993 and in the defamation case in late 1993, how can the Prime Minister continue to claim, as she did to journalists at her press conference on 23 August, that her involvement in the AWU fund ceased in early 1992?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:59): I continue to stand by what I said at that press conference. What I said at that press conference was the truth. Can I suggest to the deputy leader of the opposition she does not want to believe everything that she reads in the newspapers. I have also read in some articles in the newspapers that I gave ‘an impromptu press conference’, which is a reference to one of the longest and most detailed prime ministerial press conferences ever given, where I answered every question that the press gallery had.
Mr Pyne: I rise on a point of order on the issue of relevance, the question to the Prime Minister was that at her press conference on 23 August she said one thing, which was untrue and the proof is the power of attorney—
The SPEAKER: The manager of opposition business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: Following that interjection and just for the edification of the member who has made a false claim in this parliament, I stand by what I said at the press conference.
Andrew Bolt has more …
Update: I have inserted links to the now corrected Hansard but I have not made any corrections here.
– usually such an answer falls apart when documentary evidence with a person’s signature is presented. It is difficult to deny remembering when reminded in such a vivid way.
To be fair she can say it was a long time ago and many papers and documents were signed and she cannot recall that specific instance etc. etc.
I thought Julia Gillard had an eidetic memory.
Has any PM dropped to such a level of cowardice in our history?
Has any PM ever shamed us with such craven hypocrisy?
Can any former PM compete with the volume of broken, changed or adopted policies they had previously violently opposed?
It is almost tragic (speaking form the position of being the father of 2 girls) our first female PM has turned into our worst ever PM.
The SPEAKER:…but I am being very magnanimous.
It’s typically the case that the truly magnanimous would not make it their business to point this out.
Time allocated to the questioner is too short.
They should allocate more seconds to asking the question, and possible 5 extra minutes allocated to kicking albo’s fat ass.
I made the mistake today of catching a snippet of Question Time. Gillard is running very scared here. The only thing that will save here is the tyranny of time.
May I say that I am an Englishman. An Anglo-Australian. I have been here for 30+ years and it was my ‘country of choice’. I am proud to have Australian Citizenship. This is without doubt the best country on the planet.
That said I am ashamed. My Nation is misruled over by liars and cheats; people who have no Integrity that I can see. Our Prime Minister is a disgrace.
I am ashamed when any of these awful people purport to represent me in world forums. For that is what they are paid by the taxpayer and elected to do. They make us a laughing-stock.
I am ashamed too that so many Australians take little notice of the corruption and mismanagement, and of those that do, far too many actually collude in it.
The pathetic politicians of the left are forever telling us to do this or that so that the rest of the world does not think badly of us. What an insult. It insults us and insults the rest of the world.
THIS GOVERNMENT MUST GO.
I have not felt so ashamed and angry since living through Harold Wilson’s disgraceful Prime Ministership in the UK.
Falsely attesting the execution of a power of attorney would be a sufficient basis for the removal from the roll of a legal pracitioner’s name. Gillard may no longer have a practicing certificate but I’ll bet she remains the roll.
I don’t suppose Julie Bishop will get to the juicy bit where she asks about the affair with Wilson. It’s central to the whole thing.
she wouldn’t have compromised herself if she weren’t sleeping with him and expecting him to leave his wife
That the harridan is still afforded the appellative “Honourable” sticks in my craw.
The speaker is pisspoor.
Julie Bishop has done a great job. I understsand Mike of Marion here sent an encouraging email to her office? think I read it here. Which was kind of him, and gives support to the Coalition.
What gets to me is the “refer to my previous answer/s”. If there is nothing to hide, what’s the big deal of simply giving an answer again? – Especially as the “previous answers” were given so long ago, not to mention that they were given at a different place, without some crucial evidence newly found – if indeed they were given at all, that is!
Is she innocent, confident (that it can be covered up) or desperate (nothing left to lose)?
By giving a non-answer ie referring back to an answer that did not address the question, the Red Dalek avoids misleading the House. Even the Labor-heavy Parliamentary Privileges Committee cannot ignore it if the PM lies to the House. Thus La Gillardine stonewalls and prevaricates without answering the question.
And not a mention of any of this on ‘our’ ABC’s 7.00pm news coverage!
Imagine the hyperventilating from the lefties if allegations like this had been made against John Howard.
When it is one of their own, they don’t want to know abou it. And we are suppose to pay for it and be grateful we have them there to bring us all the news they want us to hear.
I’m with you Johno –
Also, serious question – is 7.30 trying to turn itself into Today Tonight?
What’s the bet they run a diet scam or dodgy repair story tomorrow night?
Worst. Speaker. Ever.
Johno: What I liked about Romney in the 1st debate is that he had the balls to turn to the moderator Jim Lehrer of the PBS and tell him that he will defund the PBS (the U.S. version of ‘our’ ABC) if he gets to power. When will the Libs say the same to ‘our’ ABC?
I’d like to see a question put to Gillard about her story as I understand it:
Gillard helps set up the slush fund (then has nothing more to do with it apparently);
Gillard advises Blewett on a defamation action to do with the slush fund (still without having anything to do with it apparently);
Gillard gets work done on her house which may or may not have been financed by the slush fund (how was she to know, the tradesmen just came in and did stuff while she was away apparently);
Gillard finds out the slush fund has been used for illegal purposes (shock horror);
Gillard leaves Wilson (but doesn’t report it to the police as is her legal duty);
Slater and Gordon find out (how btw?);
Gillard is “let go” and starts her political career.
Have I got that right? Because if so, even on that reading giving her the benefit of the doubt about being in on the scam or signing dodgy POI, she is not fit to be in Parliament.
Neither she nor her Canberra press lackeys referred to the power of attorney in the transcript which her own office released. By saying she “dealt with these questions on the public record”—specifically, the power of attorney which she “witnessed” as well as the mortgage wherewith it was secured—I argue that she did willfully mislead the House.
I wonder if Julie Bishop could be called out as ‘misogynist’?
Well spotted Deadman. As Bishop’s question specifically addressed the POA, and there’s no record of her explaining it in any alleged public record, then she has indeed misled the Parliament. I think the POA has only recently come up in any public discussion, and certainly no one has asked Gillard about it until today.
Whether deliberately or not, by having these questions asked by Bishop the “misogyny” defence is totally neutralized. But the funny thing – in a sad kinda way – is that Bishop herself is a victim of much hatred from Labor – a nasty, vicious campaign orchestrated by no else than Julia “they hate me because I’m a woman” Gillard.
The relevance of this to her prime ministership is that if she has acted improperly, and is now hiding it, she is compromised by being beholden to the many people who no doubt have the dirt on this issue.
She is unfit to the prime minister.
I provide a fuller argument, including all references to Ralph Blewitt within the PM’s press conference of 23 August, in “The Prime Minister Mislead the House”.
I doubt we have seen a Parliament in the 112 years since Federation which contains more crooks, shonks and charlatans.
And they all sit behind the Treasury benches or on the criss benches supporting the Gumment.
Gillard et al hate Bishop because she has their number.
And that number is number two, right?
From Cut&Paste:
THE PM responds to questions on the AWU scandal yesterday:
I CONTINUE to stand by what I said at that press conference … I have in fact dealt with these questions on the public record … What I said at that press conference was the truth. Can I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition she does not want to believe everything that she reads in the newspapers … I stand by what I said at the press conference … This question has been asked in the past. I refer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to when I dealt with all of these issues extensively on the public record.
The Age’s online poll of 15,031 people, which closed yesterday:
HAS Julia Gillard explained her involvement in the AWU scandal of the 1990s to your satisfaction? Yes 23 per cent. No 77 per cent.
Most of the 77% would barely even know about this issue so their answer would have to be no. The 23% are Labor sympathisers.
She probably does, she just forgot where she put it.
Scrap the above comment as I hadn’t noticed in was not a scientific poll.
She reads as rattled. As well she might.
Of course an Age Poll had 77 per cent say Gillard hasn’t explained her involvement in the AWU scandal of the 1990s to (their) satisfaction- The Age has been running dead on the story with only perfunctory coverage so its readers are not up to speed.
If they had been kept up to date by a conscientious paper, the figure would have been closer to 100%.
Gillard refuses to deal with the new evidence that has emerged since her so called press conference in August. This material is derived not only from the material released by the Slater&Gordon partners, but in the archival and other material discovered by Hedley Thomas and Mark Baker in News Ltd & Fairfax. But the best source of relevant documents, including the amazing affidavit of Ian Cambridge, then Joint National AWU Secretary, is found on the website of sacked broadcaster Michael Smith (michaelsmithnews.com).
Fundamentally, the allegations of potential wrongdoings relating to Gillard relate to:
*whether she transgressed WA law in misrepresenting the purpose of the AWU WRA (she assisted in its incorporation)
*whether there were improprieties in her witnessing of the Power of Attorney allowing her boyfriend (AWU Vic branch Secretary Bruce Wilson) to purchase a property on behalf of Ralph Blewitt (AWU WA branch Secretary)
*whether she had the conveyance of the purchase of the property (very likely) & whether she knew or should have known that the settlement funds came out of the AWU WRA account.
* when she became aware (after being in a relationship with Wilson for 2 years after the AWU WRA was set up), having defended Blewitt in a defamation charge re misconduct re union funds, that Wilson was allegedly involved in union fraud re accounts.
And most importantly, as Bishop raised in the last question of her barrage of questions on this matter:
* did Gillard notify the police when she became aware of the possibility of fraud, and did she assist the WA & Victorian fraud squads in their investigations?
Did anyone notice that in response to this issue of the notification of police Gillard departed for the first time from her mantra of “I’ve dealt with these matters before”. She responded that the police had already been notified. Now, there’s a comment that I think can be explored further.
Entertaining to watch a real Lawyer take apart an alleged Lawyer, despite constant interruption from Little Albo, running desperate interference,to exhaust the time, with repeated Points of Order and the Speaker playing along even to the extent of forcing Mirabella to withdraw some remark which she acknowledged she hadn’t heard but was happy to take the word of Little Albo that Mirabella had uttered something offensive.Each time Bishop attacked ,Gillard looked sicker and sicker and appears to be heading for a nervous breakdown.Meanwhile Rudd sits back,awaiting the call,looking smug and extremely self-satisfied.
The truth will become known eventually.
The tide is turning…
Video – A whole week of Questions Bishop to Gillard – easy reference
Good stuff, Bennie. The difference in style, class and professionalism between Julie and Julia is well documented in one vid. gillard really is losing it. The Speaker is shown up for the partisan shill she is on the clip as well.
Yes she does, and she almost put her foot in it in starting her reply to Bishop’s last question.
She said: “I continue to, er, claim those . . .” before checking herself.
Quite so.
Septimus, that comment was the most telling – Seems her Freudian slip is showing. I’m surprised no one has picked up on it.
Strange how many contributors seem unable to distinguish between the registration of an association and the subsequent opening of a bank account (aka here described as ‘slush fund’)?