I got the distinct feeling yesterday that
Hedley Thomas is cranky because he's put all this effort into supporting those obsessed with trying to prove Gillard was right in on the dodgy deals that her boyfriend did as a unionist 20 years ago, and yet no one cares much about the politically motivated Royal Commission which is now looking into it.
As I have said from the start: the basic details of what Wilson and Blewitt did has been known for years, Gillard did discuss it in the press and no one cared. Including Andrew Bolt. Almost certainly, journalists did not keep talking about it because, given her rise as a politician, there had been years for her enemies to leak discretely about her direct knowledge of Wilson's fraud, and as it had not happened, it was very unlikely that anyone did have such proof.
Then, once she became PM, one journalist stuffed up in his attempt to revive the story, making a claim on a detail which he previously hadn't been allowed to by the paper's defamation lawyers. He got sacked as a result when Gillard blew her top to his editor.
This lead to a radio shock jock journalist trying to pick up the story, falling out with his boss, getting the sack too, and then entertaining the sleaziest of all people involved (Blewitt) and running a web based campaign for right wing obsessives with a problem with a left leaning female Prime Minister.
Andrew Bolt decided to get his mouth involved in a quite disingenuous way, repeating all allegations, none of which proved criminality on behalf of Gillard, but working well as a general smear campaign (for the Right wing that cared what happened 20 years ago, at least). The rest of the media didn't pay much attention because, well, it happened 20 years ago and no one - no one - had ever said that Julia had told them "Ha! All that lovely money that my boyfriend conned out of Theiss! Straight into my house reno!"
Somewhere along the line Hedley thought he would join the campaign too.
At the heart of this, as always acknowledged by Smith, at least, was the personal efforts of a rich ex lawyer and (former) Labor associated entity
Harry Nowicki, whose appearance on 7.30 Tuesday night indicated he (and, according to Wilson) others have been bankrolling all this with, at heart, not much more than a political motivation to hurt Gillard:
SARAH FERGUSON: What's your motivation for your involvement in this?
HARRY
NOWICKI: I think it's important for the facts of this story to come
out, because it is a link in the chain of Ms Gillard becoming Prime
Minister.
How is it possible that someone involved in... in, in
questionable behaviour becomes Prime Minister? Now that's a political
story, that's not my story.
There was a tantalising hint at the end of that interview that Ferguson knew Nowicki had spoken to Labor Party identities too, but he denied it.
Yesterday, he suddenly "clarified" that he had "misunderstood" Sarah Ferguson:
Mr Nowicki said he misunderstood 7.30 host Sarah Ferguson's question
last night when he was asked if he had ever discussed the case with
members of the parliamentary Labor Party.
"I spoke to Robert
McClelland, not in his capacity as a Labor minister but as a participant
in court proceedings in 1995 and 1996 involving the AWU and Bruce
Wilson," he said today.
Mr Nowicki said Mr McClelland suggested he
contacted The Australian newspaper’s Hedley Thomas who was also
investigating the case.
Mr Nowicki is not coming out of this as a disinterested investigator smelling of roses.
In yesterday's evidence, I don't think we heard anything significant that hasn't been publicised before by Bolt, Smith, etc over the last year or two. Even the evidence of Hem is going no where - Wilson turned up at the office after pulling some sort of all nighter at the casino and asked him to deposit money to Gillard's account. So how does anyone know that he wasn't just using the winnings from the night before?
The one thing I am not sure I had heard before was about the builder who remembered money changing hands at the house. Is it just me, but I find it a little hard to credit that an 84 year old builder would maintain a clear recollection of money exchanging hands at a work site nearly 20 years ago. There might be an explanation as to why it would stick in your mind - like if someone had told you shortly thereafter that it was stolen money. But I don't think there was any such explanation given, and remember - Gillard was not even a politician at the time.
This has always been, at heart, a sleazy attempted political smear attack against a PM who, in any event, lost the job due to the poisonous internal politics of Labor resulting not from having a crooked boyfriend 20 years ago, but merely from the disastrous ascendancy of Kevin Rudd.
This makes people care even less about the Royal Commission, and Hedley, Smith, con man Pickering and Bolt are almost certainly going to miss any sense of satisfaction out of its results. At least, one hopes, Smith has lost money out of being a complete jerk and all round tosser. (Although with all the talk of the money floating around to fund it, who knows if even that has happened.) Unfortunately, Andrew Bolt continues to make a pretty penny out of the same tactic.
But it is kind of funny watching him fume about the ABC not covering the commission in sufficient detail for his editorial standards.