Prepare to backfire

Little observed in the media is the fact that, despite the circus last week of a sacked shock jock courting (to the extent of sharing a room with) a self confessed fraud who obviously hates Julia Gillard and admits to a bad memory of events, Newspoll yesterday indicated that the AWU scandal (TM News Limited and Michael Smith) is having absolutely no effect on public opinion.

You would think that this might give the Coalition some cause for concern about pursuing this much further.


But no, an Opposition that is almost completely devoid of characters that can provide any confidence in their political judgement is ploughing on, regardless.

After Gillard's second conference yesterday, I think there is every chance this is on its way to backfire on the Opposition.

Here is a list of points and questions that are not being made, or not often, in commentary on this matter:

1.   It was always the case that, if there was some solid evidence of Gillard having personally profitted from Wilson's association fund 18 years ago, it would have come out by now, probably via her factional enemies within her own party.   The fact that it hadn't always indicated that it did not exist.    This observation remains valid.

2.   The reporting on the matter has become a complete shambles of confusion and mixed up terminology.   Even those who are sympathetic to Gillard have made some comments which I think indicate carelessness  or confusion.   I think this only works to make the public disengage from the matter, because it is obvious that those campaigning most strongly on this (The Australian and News Ltd commentators) are out to damage Gillard and cannot be trusted to interpret events objectively.

3.  This has been a bush lawyer picnic, with the major bush lawyer the execrable Michael Smith.   This guy lost his job because he wouldn't pull a report which his boss had not been cleared through lawyers for defamation.   Smith claims it had been cleared - his boss disagreed. 

If Smith was so unfairly treated, why did he not sue his bosses?

Instead, Smith decided to go on a internet campaign against the PM.  He makes stupid, bush lawyer comments continually about anyone who signs a false statutory declaration "exposing themselves to perjury", as if this gives more credibility to evidence in a stat dec which is merely reporting rumour.

Smith's courting of Blewitt is ludicrously over the top - playing up to Blewitt as an ex Vietnam vet on Smith's website, etc.

This fake matey bonhomie persona of Smith annoys me no end - he's a dill and a nasty bit of work with an unhealthy obsession with a female Prime Minister.  And I have a particular question for him:

4.  He claimed many weeks ago - possibly months ago - that he had spoken to Bruce Wilson more than once - that he considered him a "mate" I think he went so far to say.  (Everyone is a "mate" to Smith if they don't tell him he's an asshat.)

Yet Smith has never indicated Wilson's attitude to this. 

Wilson was reported weeks ago as saying that he thought the media was "hounding" Gillard, and this indicated he thought it was unfair.  This weekend's report of Wilson finally coming out and saying that the media can give up - Gillard knew nothing and they won't find anything to the contrary raises the question - did he say the same to Smith?

If Smith knew this - has he ever even hinted at it?

I strongly suspect Wilson has told him the same, and Smith has sat on exonerating comments from the person who was the key player in the matter, just so he could continue the smear campaign.

I hope he never gets another job on radio.

5.  Smith is even the complainant to the police about an Power of Attorney signed by Blewitt nearly 20 years ago:  a power of attorney which Blewitt says he signed, was used to buy a house that Blewitt knew about, and sign a mortgage that the conveyancing file indicates Blewitt must have know about (because of letters and phone calls made to him about it.)   Blewitt now claims that he knew nothing about the mortgage - this man has extremely convenient memory gaps if it serves his purposes.

Now, assuming the worst version of events is true - that Gillard was not there when Blewitt signed it and should not  have witnessed it as if she were - there is no fraud against Blewitt that has been committed by use of the Power of Attorney.

Instead, it is Michael Smith, for blatantly political purposes, who wrote to the police asking for an investigation.

Why did the police take the matter on at all?  They have a great interest in documents signed twenty years ago that a lawyer witnessed as a favour for someone? 

I would be extremely surprised if the police complaint goes anywhere - and the police should deal with this and make their decision as soon as possible to not appear as part of a political vendetta.

6.   The whole "Gillard did something illegal by helping the association be set up" has always been a crock.

A journalist on Insiders about a month ago said he spoke to the current person in charge of incorporated associations in WA and asked whether incorporating an association with broad terms which would allow it to collect money for re-election would be illegal, and was told "no".

Again, this has barely been reported.

Finally:  unless Bishop and "scared that he can't speak about Gillard in case he again puts his foot in his mouth" Abbott have got something incredibly compelling in documentary evidence on Gillard re the incorporation - and I very much doubt they have - this is going to backfire on them soon.

They should drop it if they have any sense.

PS:  sorry about the lack of links - this story annoys me so much I can't be bothered putting too much effort into relevant work.