Political slime

I don't really have time to formulate a detailed post on the Gillard situation at the moment.    I will simply say, though, that I think Gillard's aggressive approach to this yesterday was right.  Furthermore, she needs to have some aggressive support in the Parliament.

People with common sense, of which there are remarkably few in Australia when it comes to this Prime Minister, should be thinking the following thoughts:

a.    has the Australian political scene ever witnesses such an appalling personal sliming of a politician as has happened with Pickering?    Now that the mainstream media is making brief mention of how this has hot on the "blogoshphere" for several weeks, and some readers of Pickering's posts have wondered why no one has taken him up on his taunt to be sued for defamation, it's a great pity that this report about Pickerings recent bankruptcy (and long history of avoiding legal responsibility) is not more widely known:

Mr Pickering, who has 11 children to five women, has had a complicated business life that has paid for his lifestyle but, according to the ASIC database, has had his name on the books of only one company, ZRD Technologies Pty Ltd, which has no connection to CSI.

Mr Pickering remains an undischarged bankrupt having been made bankrupt most recently in August last year on a petition by his former de facto father-in-law, George Luckardt. In reply to the bankruptcy, he  said he disputed that he owed any money and that his only asset was a $250 set of golf clubs.

Hence Pickering has felt completely free to say anything he likes.  His posts on other topics other than this show that he is completely carefree of facts, yet he has developed a following of fawning right wingnut types for whom defamation of Gillard and other Labor politicians will be gobbled up without question.

It is ironic, however, that Pickering's disreputable past was only brought to my attention at Catallaxy, a blog full of people routinely showing the worst displays of common sense and caution this side of a Lyndon LaRouche Youth Movement convention.

b.   are we really going to spend time in Parliament examining the working relationships in previous careers of politicians from nearly two decades ago?    

c.   Isn't it likely that in a matter like this in a law firm, the response by other partners will not be uniform?   I would not be surprised if she had some support, and in fact there is an old video of another Slater & Gordon partner around on (I think) Fairfax somewhere indicating that Gillard was well regarded in the firm, was always known to be going into politics.  I haven't found the video yet, but maybe later today.  (Update:  here it is, a five minute interview with Peter Gordon, who appears quite happy to support Gillard generally.  Dennis Atkins though indicates it was a "rift" with him about the direction of the firm that led to her going, though.  All very complicated.)

d.   I do not doubt that there was potential for Gillard's relationship with Wilson to have caused embarrassment to her law firm.    But law firms partnerships have internal disputes all the time, and quite frankly, it is no clear indication at all of wrongdoing or lack of integrity of a partner if they leave a firm in dispute with some or all of their other partners.   

Gillard needs her supporters out there today making points like these, and ripping into the smear aspect of this campaign that has been ludicrously unfair and sordid.

Update:    What's going on here?

Dennis Atkins, who has struck me as reasonably fair political commentator from the News Ltd Courier Mail, has a column which is defending Gillard, yet in the course of doing so, makes this claim:

 The public record tells us Gillard was involved with an influential and powerful Victorian union figure, Bruce Wilson, in the early '90s.   He was state secretary of the Australian Workers Union and they lived together in the inner city.

Um, wasn't the Milne article detail for which The Australian apologised and withdrew last year problematic only because it contained the "fresh" allegation that Gillard and Wilson actually lived together?   Has Dennis missed that somehow?

Even Hedley Thomas in his recent reporting did not revive the Milne allegation exactly - I think he said that Gillard sometimes stayed with him, but I can't find the actual words right now.

In any event, Atkins goes on to note that the departure of Gillard from Slater and Gordon has to be seen in the broader context of partnership frictions, which is entirely consistent with what I said before:

The other version of events, known to and believed by people close to Gillard, has it that Gillard resigned of her own volition following the rift that arose from the argument about the firm's direction.

Her mate and ally, Murphy, quit after an acrimonious time with senior partner Peter Gordon. Other industrial lawyers Josh Bornstein and Kate Hawkins left at the same time and Gillard left soon after, saying she wanted to pursue a political career.

One bit of history that cuts across the current conspiracy theory is that Gillard has been and remains a close friend with Murphy, the Slater and Gordon partner who uncovered the Wilson fraud and took immediate action.

What is missing is any specific allegation and exact questions Gillard should answer, as the Prime Minister said yesterday.