The campaign against the PM over her 1990s lawyering days has echoes of the Birther movement in the U.S. vs Barack Obama, says Vic Rollison — and will end similarly.
I LIKE TO USE the intensity of the The Australian’s smear campaign against the Prime Minister as a yard stick for how successful she is.
When she became the first female prime minister of this country, there’s no doubt she ruffled some conservative feathers. When she formed a minority government by negotiating with the Independents, she enraged the conservative right, who had put all their faith in their messiah – Tony Abbott. And now, in 2012, with two years of progressive policy successes (minus asylum seeker policy), and a lift in the polls signalling the failure of the conservative’s campaign against the carbon price, The Australian are more angry with Gillard and her government than they have ever been before.
Now they’re scared she’ll win again in 2013. For them, this is an unbearable humiliation that they will do anything to put right.
The ‘questions to answer’ campaign has now been treated as ‘serious front page news’ over the last few weeks by the Murdoch Press, and, not wanting to miss out on the smearing action, Fairfax and the ABC have now taken up the challenge to see who can break a story that most ‘embarrasses’ our Prime Minister. There is no accusation of anything illegal. It’s about ‘character’ apparently.
I’m wondering if it’s Gillard’s character that these articles are uncovering, or the character of the journalists writing them.
I was under the impression a few months ago that this whole AWU slush fund hoopla was over and done with after Gillard’s very impressive August 23 marathon press conference, where she answered all the questions the journalists had for her….but, no.
Apparently there are still more questions to answer. More questions about work Gillard did back in the 1990s, which appear to me to mount up to little more than bad filing.
But let’s be clear about what this campaign really is. It’s not investigative journalism. We already know that mainstream journalists don’t like to actually investigate anything – why else are they ignoring Tony Abbott’s links to key players in two other campaigns designed to bring down the government ― Kathy Jackson and James Ashby? This campaign against Gillard is all about trying to delegitimise her role as the prime minister of this country. The right wingers aren’t happy about Gillard’s success and they want her gone.
Does this sound familiar?
I can’t help but think of the ‘Birther’ movement in the US, which spent the entire first term of Barack Obama’s presidency trying to paint him as an ‘illegitimate’ president, by claiming he was born in Kenya. If the media had ignored this obvious smear campaign, it would have resided only in lunatic internet forums, where middle-aged white men bitch and moan about their president no longer being white, and worse, actually successfully bringing in progressive policy. But when Fox News decided to run with the story, and to give head Birther, Donald Trump, a forum to demand that Obama release his birth certificate to prove he is an American citizen, the entire campaign was given a validity it never deserved.
The Australian failed in its bid to destroy Gillard’s government by attacking political policy. Their campaign against the carbon price was long, exaggerated and mostly made up of mistruths about the science of climate change.
And it failed.
The current campaign that aims to attack Gillard on a personal level will also fail.
Apart from anything else, what reasonable person on the street really believed Obama was a Muslim from Kenya? And what reasonable person on the street gives a crap what happened between Gillard, her boyfriend, his slush fund, his house and some missing paperwork from 1995?
If this is the worst that the few remaining journalists at The Australian can dig up on Gillard, she has obviously lived an exemplary existence ― much more innocuous than most reasonable people on the street. As hard as it is to enjoy The Australian’s campaign, we should take heart that it proves Gillard is winning. And we should look to America’s Birther movement to see what ultimately will go down in history as right wing nut jobs clutching at straws.
(You can read more by Victoria Rollison at www.victoriarollison.com or follow her on Twitter @Vic_Rollison.)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License













25 Comments
The Australian Birthers — always more questions to answer http://t.co/MD6IOU72 #auspol
Great article Vic, I agree but am not sure whether PM Gillard will be re-elected, considering the vested interests aligned against her & the unsophisticated political nous of the majority of the Aussie electorate.
You have well described the lies, bullshit & propaganda engaged to discredit Gillard in order to elect the vested elitists puppet, bully boy Abbott. If Abbott is elected as the next PM it will be calamitous for this country.
I increasingly admire Gillard for her tenacity & her mainly progressive policy agenda. It is also refreshing to have a leader that is not pumped full of male ego & aggression.
People coveniently forget that the shift to a punitive asylum policy by the ALP has been driven by Abbott & the significant racist element in the Australian electorate that Gillard must placate to gain re-election. It’s not pretty, but the ugly political reality.
This present campaign against Gillard not surprisingly mirrors a similar one on Obama in the US, the so-called birther claims. Much of the LNP agenda & modus operandi comes straight from the GOP, tea party & associated reactionary think tanks in the USA including the propaganda strategies sprouted by the MSM.
As someone fighting to get justice after the National Australia Bank stole my farm I must take umbrage at your assertion “And what reasonable person on the street gives a crap what happened between Gillard, her boyfriend, his slush fund, his house and some missing paperwork from 1995?” because a lie is a lie is a lie and a crime is a crime is a crime. As an Australian citizen I would like to have all of this properly investigated. WA Police have re-opened the file I believe. All I want is the truth – because as the holder of the highest office in the land our Prime Minister should not be implicated in any criminal activity whatsoever.
There are laws that should be upheld – I would not have lost my home if everybody had done the right thing legally. They lied, they schemed, they stole my home – guess you’ll be voting for them if they run for Parliament without wondering just how much they’ll squirrel away from the public purse?
From all accounts (and I have read a lot of contradictory tales) there is a truth there somewhere and it should be given a public airing – she is our Prime Minister and should not be under a cloud of any kind.
And yes, I do care whether she was involved in a fraud, it doesn’t matter to me if that was 20 years ago or 2 years ago – as someone who has suffered under the arrogance of those who were too big to be called out on their dirty dealings I find this line in your article the most offensive.
What fraud are you alleging Gillard committed Rosie? This issue has had a constant airing in the media for months and nothing substantive has emerged – nothing – that’s the point. As far as I can tell, not a single reputable commentator has alleged Gillard has committed any criminal act whatsoever. That’s why it is nothing more than a pointless ancient smear. Gillard faced a press conference until the questioners ran out of questions – what more can you do. There is nothing in these stories that suggest complicity in any crime.
As far as I have seen, no police investigation is under way, nor would one be possible as it would fall well, well, well outside the statute of limitations for these sort of matters.
A smear is a smear is a smear. It’s time the Opposition started talking about policy, of which they have none, rather than these relentless gutter tactics.
I want to know if Ms Gillard covered up her then boyfriend’s theft of union funds. I am not asserting that she committed fraud but I have read far too many contradictory accounts of what Ms Gillard did and did not know. Is there a real paper trail that shows Ms Gillard did in fact benefit financially from Mr Wilson’s crimes or is this the figment of someone’s fervent imagination?
I said I wanted the truth – and I don’t think it’s too much to ask for. Is it too much to ask that the facts be examined without fear or favour? No agenda to bury someone who is innocent nor make someone who is guilty appear innocent. Just an examination of the evidence.
Those questions have been answered at length. Unless there is some real proof – about these events that happened 17 years ago – the smear campaign should end. It is ridiculous.
There is no contradiction, Rosie, and the matter was investigated by police at the time.
It is easy to become confused with the doublespeak of those trying so desperately to infer and imply wrongdoing by the PM, being terribly careful not to repeat their mistakes of making allegations that would leave them open to defamation action, as they have done in the past.
The lawyer on 7.30 last night came a bit close when he tried to allege that Gillard was asked to resign from Slater&Gordon, and Sales picked him up on it. It would have been humourous watching his convoluted attempts to maintain that that was, in essence, what happened without crossing the defamation line, except there is nothing vaguely humourous about any of these incredibly low political machinations that have already damaged the lives of Peter Slipper and, particularly, Craig Thomson – and families- in ways that have left me wondering why anybody would contemplate entering the political arena.
What if, on all the information I have seen, heard, read about, thought about and considered – what if I’m still wondering what the truth is? She’s the head of our Government and I think she should be beyond reproach.
Perhaps my experiences with NAB have made me too cynical but well, I don’t believe she has answered all the questions – she has said she has but I do not believe that she did – it certainly didn’t sound that way to me. But I admit that I am far too cynical these days but as I said – as our Prime Minister – she must be above reproach – totally. And I for one have questions based on the sum of the evidence I have seen (both sides of the story)
Most disgusting is the role that the ABC, our public Broadcaster, has played in this smear campaign. A recent example is the long interview with Nick Styant-Browne on the 7.30 Report which proved absolutely nothing. In spite of Styant-Browne’s attempts to make more of it, the whole thing looked like a fairly routine conveyancing transaction and the fax doesn’t prove that anything. What if she knew about it in 1995 rather than 1993!?
Rosie : what on earth are you talking about?. What evidence ?
Kangaroo Court of Australia would be more to your liking where unfounded claims abound because there is no answer to them.
This matter is absolutely off the radar of the man/woman in the street. No-one is actually interested and the PM whether you loathe or love her is handling it correctly ie :put up or shut up.
Australia’s media is becoming so tiresome it really is a put off. We know what to expect with News Ltd. I can almost tolerate them. Easy to read between the lines.
It’s the increasingly tragic Fairfax and the ABC which seems intent on reducing itself to Today Tonight levels that worry me. That and Peter Hartcher’s always wrong predictions on politics. He seems desperate for a role at News Ltd.
Give it a month and this will be a stale as old bread. Unfortunately we’ll still be stuck with out media.
For so many months the MSM has persisted with this AWU saga of about 20 years ago by claiming Julia Gillard has “questions to answer”. These “questions” are never listed in detail because the journalists concerned fear defamation so the phrase is repeated ad nauseum with the hope Julia Gillard will crack. As the boy who cried wolf the “questions to answer” has become hackneyed so today, Dennis Shanahan, in The Australian has attempted a slightly different tactic. The “questions to answer” are now called “queries she faces”:
“JULIA Gillard is not changing her tactics in relation to the queries she faces about her involvement in the AWU slush fund affair – she’s stonewalling.”
Shanahan continues his with his hot air by asserting that “Labor MPs, including ministers, believe the interests of the party and the wider labour movement would be best served by a comprehensive response from Gillard to the avalanche of questions”. Shanahan can’t help himself. Yep, there’s that word “questions” again. .
But who are those “Labor MPs, including ministers”. Why does he not name them?
Shanahan then claims “Ministers expressed alarm yesterday as the message filtered back from Ms Gillard’s office that the reappearance of one-time union bagman Ralph Blewitt meant it was impossible to say where next week’s parliamentary session would end up”. Again, who are the “ministers [who] expressed alarm”?
Then Shanahan states “dissatisfaction within Labor has been growing over Gillard’s response to the unease about the establishment of the slush fund”. Who is dissatisfied within Labor?
Name names, Shanahan, otherwise your article is a minestrone without vegetables – just a bowl of badmouthing water.
Noticed how Abbott’s crones has shut up about the Thomson issue of late? This, as far as I can tell, was because of Craig’s lawyer telling Abbot to ‘shut his mouth’. Perchance the PM should avail herself of this gentleman’s services? Still, this hasn’t kept my favourite Liebral pompous git Brandis to harp on about it under Parliamentary privilege. Gutless skank that he is.
Regardless of what the PM decides to do, the longer the LIEbrals continue to bang on about this, the more desperate they appear, and indeed the more of an ‘ineffective and wasteful’ opposition they prove themselves to be. Additionally, this also reflects on the MSM, proving they they too are ineffective.
“….time to produce some evidence or go away.”
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/all-smear-but-no-evidence-against-gillard-says-howes-20121123-29xav.html#ixzz2D5DtuFDB
Did anyone hear that Age ratbag, Mark Butler on the Faine show yesterday right after Sydney ratbag “sacked” shock-jock yesterday morning?
Butler was defensive; aggressively so, would not answer straight questions, spoke over Faine so much Jon had to cut his phone to hear only, to get a word in edge wise, ever the gentleman though slightly p***ed off gentlemen. Faine is torn between giving this BS more oxygen that it deserves against playing a part in getting it chucked out.
Once again no “evidence” or anything; just a feeble more “questions to answer” diatribe, with nothing new to answer nor ability to join dot’s that don’t unhelpfully join for Ratbag#2567 Butler…..the first #2566 taken up by Bolt, Akerman, Jones, News Ltd in general etc…..
So put up or shut you far right wing nutters and stop trying to destroy Australia because the “shiela” refuses to buckle. Tough titties you thugs.
This is becoming worse that 1975.
First there is Thomsen; accusations aplenty yet no charges.
Then Jackson that MSM furiously ignores her transgressions as she is THEIR whistle Blower.
Then the Ashby/Slipper Conspiracy – where will that will end up, God knows!! Sleaze upon sleaze. Ask Pauline Hansen who did time on a beat up….authored by rAbbott.
Now Julia’s time as a Lawyer attacked by Murdoch, Shock Jocks, sleazy characters – 2 of whom live overseas – wonder why, rAbbot, that detestible Bishop woman (take your pick).
All because the Canberra Press Gallery, Big Business and the Far Right in this nation didn’t get their way. Expect Parliament this week to further reduce the client’s perception of it if that is possible after rAbbott, the Poodle etc have trashed it since 2010.
And we as a nation ignore all the good this Government has done since 2007.
Pathetic.
You can almost scense the– eve of an election year arriving— through the rabid hype of the Murdoch bover boys (BOLT, AKERMAN) taking smear and distorted facts to the heights of frothing at the mouth shrill..
Remember 2007 when the conservative’s demi-god(Howard )was looking like he was going to get an almighty kicking in the upcoming general election.
The bover boys went into high screeching panic mode preaching week in week out about Rudd’s character flaws on accepting an invitation to a girly bar in lower Manhatten
In the end it did not matter because the good people in Howard’s
voting precinct boned the fool and trashed the conservative relic (and the horrid Howard years) to the dustbin of history
IT seem nothing has changed this time around ( on the eve of this general election)expect more of the same but a lot more intenseity as the electorate starts to appreciate and warms to the hard Welsh genetic dna passed on to Gillard by her beloved DA
Vic, another great article, telling the truth.
As for Rosie,I don’t know why she is comparing this with her and the NAB? She should give up reading or listening to the MSM.
I’ve watched these campaigns over the years and without fail, they backfire on the accusers.
There is a reason : they suck up media airtime and the limited ‘thinking’ time the general public will apply to politics.
Those who pursue them : and more often than not it is now the media who does, do not seem to understand that the vast majority of Australians have a life outside politics.
Life is too busy and too complicated.
These smear campaigns do not work. They leave a vacuum created by the smearers- in the case the Opposition and it’s media cheerleaders which could have been better filled with providing endless talk of superb policies they will implement.
For 3 years the Opposition could batter the government by announcing it’s alternative policies.
Once a media beat-up balloon bursts, like the Thomson affair, it’s all forgotten in the daily rush of citizen’s lives. In 3 months they will have forgotten who Craig Thomson is..indeed they will hardly remember who Peter Slipper is.
On Tuesday I spoke to a TV producer of popular reality shows who concurred with me on this : likening it to TV shows where he says the pace now is so rapid that if viewers miss an episode they are not interested in catching up–they have moved on within days.
When Mark Latham published his book a few years ago it was claimed (by Denis Shanahan and others) it would destroy the Labor Party as it was so scathing of them. I said the opposite : that it would be forgotten withing 3 months.
I was correct and Shanahan, Hartcher and nearly all political pundits were totally wrong as Rudd defeated Howard.
Our political journalists are largely, a total joke.
Rosie, I read a blog yesterday, I think it was on Independent Australia, that said that under the Victorian Legal Code of Ethics a lawyer who reported wrong doing about their clients after the case has finished would not be acting within the law.
In short,
just as Julie Bishop doesn’t want to answer whether she knew James Hardie was acting illegally in West Australia,
so Julia Gillard must not answer questions about AWU conduct in this matter under Victorian law.
Also in the SMH of today Peter Hartcher has written an opinion on the AWU event of 17 plus years ago. More words have been written on this episode during this year by our esteemed MSM than all the words found in James Joyce’s Ulysses, Marcel Proust’s Remembrance Of Things Past and Xavier Herbert’s Poor Fellow My Country.
History may repeat itself, but our journalists repeat each other and Hartcher should refund his pay cheque for his unworthy article of today. There is nothing of substance presented that hasn’t been written earlier by one or more in the Murdoch press.
Hartcher claims “The grave and immediate danger to Labor’s hold on power is the fast-building crisis over the Prime Minister’s connections to a major union fraud case from 1991 to 1995.”, and this is immediately followed by about 440 words on the Murray-Darling system. One would expect a senior journalist stick to the subject and no change in midstream.
Eventually he begins:
“After a slow, early trickle the flow of new material is now spilling out from multiple sources and is being reported in all mainstream media”.
And on and on he goes full of disgorged words that have been chewed, swallowed and spewed by other journalists over the past many months.
The opinion is titled “Knives are out for Gillard”. Et tu Hartcher..
Don’t bother reading Peter Hartcher. His audition pieces for News Ltd won’t do him much good.
I gave up on him when he confidently predicted John Howard would romp home in 2007.
Fairfax are becoming a tangled disgrace. The word from inside their Pyrmont HQ (workers have dubbed it the Lubyanka)is that morale is at rock bottom.
Their digital issues are tragic, colorless, boring and like a plate of cold potatoes. In a month when the UK MailOnline reaches a staggering 109M hits, Fairfax digital is plummeting.
Simple things like their infuriating videos (complains right across internet about how they begin automatically)where you inadvertently click on a story to find a paragraph and then a ponderous journo tell the same tale to the camera as though it’s frightfully important.
They are balmy if they think they will survive on such poor quality when they go digital. Cannot understand why Gina Rinehart wants Fairfax unless it’s too asset strip it.
Eventually he begins:
“After a slow, early trickle the flow of new material is now spilling out from multiple sources and is being reported in all mainstream media”.
Wrong and exagerated. We have a disgruntled lawyer (do these ‘whistleblowing’ lawyers think any client would trust them again in regards to confidentialty ?) and the same trade union bloke who has revealed mostly hot air.
Hardly multiple sources.
So long as the airwaves are cluttered with this bile, the Liebrals are safe for the moment. Any airplay that can be successfully diverted from the lack of revolutionary policy by said liebrals the better it is for them – not so much for the electorate unfortunately. As much as I really admire Gillard for her stance, I do think the rest of Labor just aren’t hitting back hard enough.
Bullys only understand bullying behaviour, so when the opposition goes for Gillard, Labor should be going in HARD for Abbott’s throat- and for Pyne for the Ashby affair, and for Brandis and Abetz for the HSU fiddlings.
One thing that Labor has yet to learn is that is it SO painfull for ALP voters to continually watch as they stand there like a punching bag and cop all this tripe. Witness Gillards ‘mysogonist’ speech after which she, and the ALP as a whole, got a huge injection of pride. Being thumped buy a hypocrite like Bishop means the ALP think tank has much to learn.
Good article. Rosie, it seems that you, the Coalition and the mindless media just want to keep asking the same old questions which have been answered consistently for the past 17 years. The PM has nothing more to answer.
All that has come up in recent days is a copy of a fax from the bank marked ‘Attention Julia Gillard’. Now, when I was involved in accounting, when something was marked for a particular person’s attention, that person initialled the document as indication they had received/sighted it. Julia Gillard’s initials are not on this document, which is a very good indication she never saw it.
It is only a confirmation of a commonplace procedure anyway, not a crucial document and in no way does it link Julia Gillard with the AWU, or any of the corruption which was occurring. Julie Bishop was a lawyer, she would be fully aware of all this, yet she is still continuing to pursue the matter.
She is acting as Tony Abbott’s mouthpiece, to take the heat off Tony, who hasn’t been faring so well since Julia Gillard called him for the misogynist he is. Tony still hasn’t given up hope of bringing down the ‘guv’ment’ so he can claim the prize he thinks he was cheated out of, in 2010. Tony Windsor got it right when he said ‘Abbott is prepared to do anything to be PM – even sell his own a**e’.
If the Coalition waste the last week of Parliament over this trumped-up issue, then they will just confirm they are not fit to run our country.
I tried to post this in the ever disappointing Age last week about those renecks sadly down here:
No wonder they call it Franghanistan down here.
The minute that idiot Hansen came onto the scene; and the media embraced here as an celeb oddity rather than slapping her back into her fish n chip shop, we have been on this slippery slope.
And then Howard said nothing and embraced her Policy that manifested itself in the Pacific Solution, Tampa….. sadly still being fought out now across our National Polity. If only he had slapped it down and did the right thing instead of embracing it to get himself re-elected, that let the rednecks out of their caves, we probably wouldn’t be seeing the above. And still Morrison and rAbbot hold onto it like a dying man to a glass of water because they have got those redneck votes and ain’t letting go.
Sad and downright scary.
Commenter
Phil
Date and time
November 22, 2012, 6:55AM
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/comedy/the-girl-cant-help-it-20121123-29yc0.html#ixzz2DGdqxxXr
It was rejected.
You should see other stuff allowed through. And on the Drum too. Please tell where I was incorrect
MSM…..
Poor fella my country.
And today in the Current Bun via the Daily Bullshit by ……you guessed it Sreve Lewis…..the “Journalist” who “got” Slipper.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/release-all-slush-fund-files-blewitt-demands/story-fndo317g-1226523805065
Note it is the only article not blocked requiring you give money to Murdock. No mention of Blewitt’s family’s thoughts of him.
Wonder why?
Patoshea love your description of the Sanctimonious Hartcher who I heard justifying his response to “the Misogyny Speech”. Again he missed the point with his articile on the AWU accusations. If and when the SMH goes down I hope that he doesn’t even get a job selling the Big Issue.
Rosie, I admire your questions, and we are ALL entitled to answers. but I think you have to agree, the exhaustive, months long questioning from media and opposition alike has been answered.
Why not admit you are partisan and are not prepared to accept the answers provided to the questions asked, because you wish it so.