Perhaps it was a misprint - didn't Gillard call it a "slush" fund? "Trust" fund actually sounds much more respectable...
We have managed a trust fund when managing units some time ago and the rules are very strict with spot audits and every receipt must be kept and books reconciled monthly.
Whereas a "slush" fund seems to be a much looser arrangement.
Who is this from? Just saying it was on Facebook places no onus on the writer to take responsibility for this stuff, much of which seems libellous to me.FACEBOOK...
JULIA IN DEEPER S^&T THAN CRAIG:
Evidence to show this?Bruce Wilson was an AWU heavy and Gillard’s boyfriend at the time. He had been threatening developers in a thinly disguised, mob-style protection racket: Industrial peace for payment... up to $50,000 at a time.
Again, where is the proof?The payments went straight to accounts Gillard had arranged while she was still working for the Left wing law firm, Slater & Gordon.
Gillard was into the scam up to her elbows and, as she was screwing Wilson at the time, pillow talk wasn’t confined to her other sexual exploits including married father, and current, Trade Minister Craig Emerson and now Gold Coast spiv Tim Mathieson who departed the Coast leaving multiple unpaid debts.
Her part in the scam was rewarded with $50,000 of renovations to her house and a $25,000 account at a top fashion house (although one could be forgiven for thinking she never used it.)
Why would it? The journalists in the UK had been involved in despicable behaviour and are being appropriately dealt with as a result.A Leveson-style inquiry here would mutilate the very core of Australia’s media and their executives as it has, and is still doing, in the UK.
That, at least, is a relief.Fairfax and Murdoch executives, to put it bluntly, were ****ting themselves. Their indecent grappling for a piece of an ever-decreasing circulation market-share would have opened an ugly can of worms. A can I will let sit for another time.
Wonderful. I can't wait. In the meantime, whoever wrote this apparently has to answer to no one, despite making some very nasty allegations. Is this our definition of 'free speech'. It's not mine.So, this squalid deal was done but the sordid tale still bubbles below the surface. It reaches to the very heart of the Labor movement. We are witnessing only the tip of unions’ mob-like protection rackets and their corrupt manipulation of our Parliaments.
This shameful story will eventually be told in full colour. It will be a long and agonising read.
Where did this come from?
If you can assure us of that, joe, you should be prepared to put up the proof.Nobody in this country understands and knows what Gillard did in relation with the above.
But I can ensure you Labor and Gillard were at the end of the handout!!
joea
Yes, of course. For Labor to continue to harp on about harmless the carbon tax is makes no sense in the face of their 'compensating' most of the electorate.The Carbon tax will also be applied to transport fuels in 2014, conveniently after the next election.
Labor knows it will bite. That after all is its purpose.
I doubt this will be the end of it. By her own admission, it was indeed a slush fund.
Beyond that, I don't know what News was up to. Perhaps it over-reached in trying to draw her into making a statement.
After running the press gallery out of questions yesterday and calling the attacks what they are some thing that Abbott is totally unable to do BTW cannot even do a simple 7.30 interview again she has nothing to answer to.
Jeezzess you would think Abbott could do an interview surely fact is he is running around the country telling porkies and he knows it.
If there was any thing out there on Gillard the coalition would be all over her in the house.
Pickering also got a serve of what he deserves.
In her answers yesterday, the Prime Minister deftly moved the goalposts. It was a legalistic answer, a duck-and-weave that takes a minute or two to see as such.
Gillard said: "My understanding of the purpose of this association was to support the re-election of union officials who would run a campaign saying that they wanted re-election because they were committed to reforming workplaces in a certain way, to increasing occupational health and safety, to improving the conditions of the members of the union. That was my understanding of the purpose of the association, and so I provided legal advice for the association."
There it is. If Gillard had given the WA government agency the same answer as she gave yesterday, the bureaucrats in Perth would likely have rejected the application outright. They would have seen it for what it was: a "slush fund" for the purpose of raising funds for the election of union officials.
Gillard's explanations on this will raise more questions about trust, integrity and professionalism.
Mr Redican said the severity of the price falls since May of the two commodities, which together account for 40 per cent of Australia's export income, meant that the terms of trade did not rise at all in 2011-12 and were facing a fall of about 11 per cent this year, provided there was no further deterioration in prices.
The budget papers include Treasury's estimate of what would happen to the budget bottom line if the terms of trade were weaker than expected, showing a four percentage point fall would take $3.4bn from the bottom line. If there were no recovery in prices, this suggests the revenue shortfall would be about $7bn.
However, Mr Redican said the sharp falls in iron ore and coal prices meant the damage to revenue would be greater than Treasury estimates because the mining tax was exclusively dependent on iron ore and coal prices, while they were also the biggest source of company tax from the resource sector.
After running the press gallery out of questions yesterday and calling the attacks what they are some thing that Abbott is totally unable to do BTW cannot even do a simple 7.30 interview again she has nothing to answer to.
Jeezzess you would think Abbott could do an interview surely fact is he is running around the country telling porkies and he knows it.
If there was any thing out there on Gillard the coalition would be all over her in the house.
Pickering also got a serve of what he deserves.
And it was a masterstroke to spring the press conference on journalists who thought they were there for an announcement on the new refugee intake, and then stand there until the questions from the largely unprepared petered out in the only opportunity Gillard says she’ll ever give them.
Why would Gillard call a press conference to talk about refugees and then hit the unprepared journalists with the opportunity to ask questions about her past? Surely this raises more questions. Was she afraid they would come up with questions she couldn't answer if they were briefed before coming? Would better informed journalists have attended?
TONY JONES: Yeah, Sid Maher, when you run a series of stories like this, especially when you take on someone as powerful as a prime minister, it can end up a little bit like a prize fight, and so to continue that analogy, did The Australian let its guard down today when it published the allegation once again that Julia Gillard had set up a trust fund for her boyfriend, or former boyfriend, 17 years ago?
SID MAHER: Look, Tony, The Australian made a mistake on a colour story about her ex-boyfriend that was published on page six. It was written by a journalist that has not been the lead author of the investigation. And the mistake was immediately corrected and an apology issued. I don't think that that particular ...
TONY JONES: Did it shift the momentum away, because it certainly created momentum for the Prime Minister. I mean, she leapt on top of that. It became the whole rationale for doing this press conference in the first place.
SID MAHER: I don't think - I think what the Prime Minister said today basically confirmed everything that Hedley's been writing over the last week
TONY JONES: Yeah, I think I heard you - it sounded like your voice anyway, Sid Maher, suggesting or arguing with Julia Gillard that if the reporter had written "slush fund" instead of "trust fund", he'd have no problems.
SID MAHER: I think that's probably right, Tony.
So, that's what happened.The Australian gave her the opening by calling the fund she set up for Wilson as a "trust" fund instead of "slush" fund, and then apologising.
Gillard lost all credibility for me when she siad the attack was misogynist
My impression was that she said that in the context of Larry Pickering who had made some gratuitous and unproven remarks about her sexual preferences.Gillard lost all credibility for me when she siad the attack was misogynist
+1. Unfortunately politics on all sides has descended into a race to the bottom. They are shameless in their lack of integrity. Truly depressingThe next political leader to stand up with credibility and honesty will be in power for quite some time...but not likely in my lifetime.
cheers
Surly
Unprepared journalists? This story has been all over the blogosphere for months, and in the Australian for weeks, then all the rest of the mainstream media for at least a week.Why would Gillard call a press conference to talk about refugees and then hit the unprepared journalists with the opportunity to ask questions about her past? Surely this raises more questions. Was she afraid they would come up with questions she couldn't answer if they were briefed before coming? Would better informed journalists have attended?
I don't expect to see a lot of change in 2PP in the next Newspoll. The last one was allready somewhat at odds with Essential Media.The next poll will be interesting, with Mr Abbott's dismal performance on 7.30 and Ms Gillard's more impressive effort yesterday.
My impression was that she said that in the context of Larry Pickering who had made some gratuitous and unproven remarks about her sexual preferences.
Fair enough. However, I've never heard any media commentator pejorativelysuggest any male member of parliament has experimented with homosexuality before settling on being heterosexual.Gratuitous and unproven remarks about someone's sexual preferences can be made to someone of either sex, that is not sexist or misogynist IMO. When people make these sort of remarks about men I never hear them play the sexism card.
Fair enough. However, I've never heard any media commentator pejorativelysuggest any male member of parliament has experimented with homosexuality before settling on being heterosexual.
I think anyone in receipt of such a comment has a right to react to it with more than a bit of irritation.
Personally, I think any comments about the sexual preference of any public figure are entirely gratuitous and in bad taste.
Do you really think Larry Pickering would have made an equal comment about Tony Abbott having similarly experimented with homosexuality? I doubt it very much indeed. So to that end, Ms Gillard may have some justification in her comment about it being a mysogynistic remark.
Fair enough. However, I've never heard any media commentator pejorativelysuggest any male member of parliament has experimented with homosexuality before settling on being ]heterosexual.
I think anyone in receipt of such a comment has a right to react to it with more than a bit of irritation.
Personally, I think any comments about the sexual preference of any public figure are entirely gratuitous and in bad taste.
Do you really think Larry Pickering would have made an equal comment about Tony Abbott having similarly experimented with homosexuality? I doubt it very much indeed. So to that end, Ms Gillard may have some justification in her comment about it being a mysogynistic remark.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?