I will question all your Answers

I read through Gillard’s supposed thorough response to what happened 18 years ago and am left wondering at the many media outlets that not only didn’t ask questions about the Press Con but who actually talked about how impressive Gillard was.  In fact in their words she took all questions and answered every one of them, maybe a stretch on what really occurred.

We had a PM that called a sudden Press Con and set the agenda without getting too much argument.  Like:

JOURNALIST: In terms of the discussion around why you left Slater & Gordon it’s been suggested that you felt you had been shabbily treated in some way. Can you explain to us whether that’s accurate, whether you were of that view and why, and did your departure have to do with other issues? Did it have to do for example with the Ian Smith matter? Did it have to do with the general discussion in the legal firm about moving from industrial practice to a client action base? Can you give us an honest answer about why you actually left?

GILLARD: Well everything I’m saying to you today is accurate and honest. There we have it everything she is saying is honest and accurate,  because she says it is and no one argued the point?  In Slater & Gordon, there were increasing tensions in the partnership, there were some underlying tensions about the direction of the firm. Slater & Gordon is an old firm, a historic firm, a firm that’s proudly operated for working people. It commenced around this period of time to move increasingly into the class action area.There was the class action on Wittenoom, asbestos; there was the breast implant litigation. There was the Ok Tedi litigation for people who had been prejudiced by the action of a mining company and so on. So yes, there were discussions about the direction of the firm and you would expect people to have different views about that and they did. That underlying discussion was happening, causing some friction. Friction and was exacerbated around a very controversial case involving a woman called Ms Sheryl Harris; you’ve just referred to it. It also involved a matter called Mr Smith. And then it is also true to say that these matters, these AWU matters also added to tensions in the firm.

JOURNALIST: Did you feel shabbily treated did it affect your relationship with Mr Gordon for some years thereafter?

GILLARD: There were tensions in the partnership. Obviously I resigned from Slater & Gordon as history records. Mr Murphy went to be a partner at Maurice Blackburn. So yes, there was some sense of, you know, some personal emotional engagement in these issues. I think you would expect that – real world, real human beings. From my point of view now, it’s all history. I have a very good relationship with Slater & Gordon. I’m very chuffed that a room there is being named in my honour.

The magic statement “Obviously I resigned from Slater and Gordon as history records”  Strangely my records show History is a fickle bedfellow.  I have it showing : 

Likewise, it is no secret that (name redacted) and Ms Gillard left the firm in late 1995 in circumstances where their relationship with the equity partnership group had become fractured, and trust and confidence evaporated. We also had concerns about various aspects of the way in which (name redacted) and Ms Gillard had acted with regard to Mr Wilson and the AWU. We felt that a number of matters required explanation and we were concerned as to whether they had acted consistently with their obligations of utmost good faith with regard to their partners.

While we were not in a position to conduct a formal audit, we did conduct a number of interviews including a formal interview at which a number of allegations were put and responded to.   While we were not in a position to conduct a formal audit, we did conduct a number of interviews including a formal interview at which a number of allegations were put and responded to.

The partnership was extremely unhappy with both (name redacted) and Ms Gillard, considered that proper vigilance had not been observed and that their duties of utmost good faith to their partners especially as to timely disclosure had not been met. The partnership considered terminating (name redacted) and Ms Gillard. It is fair to say that (name redacted) and Ms Gillard also developed considerable antipathy towards the other partners and made their unhappiness clear as to what they saw as our failure to understand their position and to support them. It was clear the relationships had broken down irretrievably.

So Gillard got somewhere close to this one, she did resign, but never indicated it was jump or be pushed.   “Ms Gillard elected to resign and we accepted her resignation without discussion.” We all know what this meant, and the fact she never tried to fight them over this says she had nothing to fight with.

JOURNALIST: Ms Gillard, if you weren’t aware until later on of the alleged corrupt uses for the workplace reform association that you set up at Slater & Gordon, how was that part of the conflict and the tension between the partnership that led to your departure?

GILLARD: You’ve got the time sequence wrong. There was a debate in the partnership about the direction of the firm. There was the Sheryl Harris matter and sometime after the Sheryl Harris matter, there were these public exposure of the matters involving the AWU and Mr Wilson.

Now this gobbledygook was not challenged by the journalist, who allowed her to escape without answering on the spot, a lack of experience maybe?

JOURNALIST: Are you worried about any of the people giving releasing client-privilege – the AWU, Ralph Blewitt?

GILLARD: That’s a matter for the clients involved, not for me?

JOURNALIST: It doesn’t worry you?

GILLARD: Look, I’m not going to give advice to people about what they should do about their legal professional privilege. It’s a matter for them. I’m answering your questions now. If you’ve got questions, put them.

The Client is the only one that can claim client client legal privilege, and they are the only ones who release or block the release of information.  

And NO Julia you aren’t answering any real questions,  you are giving AN answer to some of them

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, if the Opposition were to use Question Time to ask you about these issues and you answered them, would that in your view satisfy any calls for a full statement to Parliament?

GILLARD: Well, I think I should be, I’m in the process of satisfying calls for the provision of further information. I remind you that there is not one direct question that has been put to me either in Parliament or through their regular media interviews by the Opposition that they say I have to answer. In those circumstances where they are unable to articulate a question and I am sitting here in front of, what, 20, 30, people, answering any question they choose to ask me, I think that that is satisfactory to deal with the matter.

WHAT is satisfactory Ms Gillard is for you to answer the questions in Parliament or a full statement given during Parliament, then if you lie it is a serious matter, however that is the one time you won’t answer questions or make a statement as you know you have to lie about this matter and you won’t take that risk.  Question Time is a bigger joke than the Politicians that ask and answer questions.

GILLARD: Apart from that, for many, many months now I’ve been the subject of a very sexist smear campaign from people for whom I have no respect, and I am not going to spend my time answering the ravings of Larry Pickering and the like.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, these events, particularly the ones over the last few days, are they having any impact on your thinking about what to do about media regulation?

GILLARD: My thinking about media regulation will not be defined by these events. I’ve well and truly got my eyes on the public policy questions and the future. So the test I will use in dealing with any issues about media regulation is not what difference it makes today, but what will be the circumstance for the ability of Australians to get quality, diverse information in five, 10, 15, 20 years’ time.

This is another stretch on the truth, but a more significant one because she is eluding to her longer term Communist aims.  

Julia, you knew the truth then, you know the truth now and you are relying on being able to silence people.  If you don’t like what people say, you rely on name calling  like a petulant school child.  Just resign and head off for your beloved China or whichever country is your favourite today and stop damaging our Australia