Talk:AWU affair

recent developments

The content removed here was not well written, but there are some recent WP:RS to verify many details (e.g. backdating, the power of attorney). See [1] [2] --Surturz (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge Diary & $5000

Per this edit, User:HiLo48 changed

Ian Cambridge, (a 2012 Fair Work Australia Commissioner), recorded in his diary on June 1996

to

Ian Cambridge, (a 2012 Fair Work Australia Commissioner), claimed that he recorded in his diary on June 1996

(emphasis mine). This change is not supported by the reference. The article states that:

The 1994-96 diary, which recounts hitherto unknown numerous events and conversations during the AWU fraud scandal, has been obtained and its authenticity verified by The Australian.[3]

This does not state that Cambridge made any claims... it states that there is physical evidence that he recorded something in his diary, because the newspaper obtained the diary, confirmed its authenticity, and is reporting what was recorded therein. The correct verb is "record" not "claim". I have reverted HiLo48 accordingly. --Surturz (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What does "its authenticity verified by The Australian" mean? I know what you want it to mean, but do we actually know? You see, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, The Australian can hardly be seen as an impartial source on anything to do with this matter. I trust it as far as the corner of the family room where I put sheets of it down in case our new dog needs to go during the night. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Mr Cambridge, the former national secretary of the AWU who is now a Fair Work commissioner, kept a detailed diary while investigating serious fraud in the union in the mid-1990s. More than 150 pages of his diary covering the period have been obtained by The Australian and verified as authentic by Mr Cambridge."[4] --Surturz (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The point is a valid one. If the diary record is there, written down 17 years ago, then Cambridge isn't "claiming" anything now. It is a factual statement. Surely nobody was setting out to smear the Prime Minister long before she was even a politician? Gillard has not addressed the story directly, once again evading direct questions. It also sounds like there is more to come on this topic. We should keep an eye on breaking news and try to keep BLP in mind. Calm minds and civil voices would be an asset here. HiLo, I'm looking at you, and I urge you to please, please, please pause a moment or two before posting anything intemperate. --Pete (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely that "Calm minds and civil voices would be an asset here", so what is "HiLo, I'm looking at you" doing here. If that's not a pre-emptive attack, and a further sign of your obsession with me, I don't know what it is. I made a commitment to avoid engaging with you. I do wish you would grow up and try to do the same. Just stick to discussing article content, as I have up until now, or go away! HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In response to your response to Surturz above. We don't need to talk about dogs going in family rooms. --Pete (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have said many times before that you seem not to understand many of my posts. That's sad. But I want to say no more on the matter. I request that you stick to the subject here too from now on. I am not the subject. HiLo48 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have partially reverted a recent edit by Bilby: [5]. Bilby's change converts Cambridge's diary entry into a direct allegation from Hem. That's a borderline WP:BLP vio, and misrepresents the reference. --Surturz (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You are aware that it was an allegation by Hem? That Cambridge was only reporting what Hem told him, and is not making any additional claims as to the validity or otherwise of Hem's statement? That said, I'm not much concerned either way. We still have no evidence that the $5,000 has anything to do with the scandal, so unless something turns up relatively soon we are likely to need to remove the section as a whole. - Bilby (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hem clarified the story in 2012 and you are most welcome to read the references and accurately summarise their contents. The content is related to the AWU scandal by its inclusion in Cambridge's diary - as detailed in the references - so please leave the content in the article, unless you have other, better, references to indicate that Cambridge did not record the incident in his diary. In general, it would be much better if you provide references for the changes you wish to make to the article, rather than make unsupported changes based on your own personal opinion. --Surturz (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think what might be better is that someone produces evidence that the money was deposited into her account, that it came from the slush fund, or that it was related to her actions in regard to the slush fund. At this stage, there is yet to be any evidence produced that the money had anything to do with the scandal, other than being mentioned to Cambridge and coming from Gillard's partner. I have no hassles on us reporting on the scandal. I do have a hassle when we report unsubstantiated allegations with no evidence that they are connected to the scandal and which draws the readers to unjustified conclusions. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome to express any theories you may have as to the nature of the $5,000 deposit but when it comes to article content, please stick to the references, which say it is related. As per WP:EVENT, there has been national coverage in multiple sources over an extended period for this, so it should stay in the article, whatever your private misgivings are about the allegation. --Surturz (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, no. The sources do not say it was related. That would be the point. Unless you can produce sources which do show that it was related, we are forced to assume that it is not. - Bilby (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

How is it not related? Every media outlet has the $5 000 as ann integral part of their coverage. If we consider the AWU scandal as something excluding Julia Gillard - which is a long way from the reality given her involvement in providing advice, witnessing signatures and so on - then there is still the involvement of Wilson and Cambridge and Hems. Gillard specifically included the allegation in her recent press conference, and did not rule it out. Her exact language on this point is very careful, but very evasive. --Pete (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't related, because no one has shown a connection between the $5000 and the scandal. The only connection that has been shown is that the money came from Wilson, and that it was mentioned to Cambridge. Otherwise, there has been nothing presented in the media connecting the two. I'm happy to wait for a bit longer to see if any connection emerges, but as I've said before, if no connection is shown then we need to consider what the proper weight to give it should be, and that may entail dropping the coverage from here. - Bilby (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be taking a narrower definition of the affair than I do. What is your definition of "the AWU scandal"? --Pete (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

So it would seem. I assumed that the AWU scandal is the alleged fraud by Wilson and Blewitt regarding the slush fund, and various allegations about who was involved in it if it occurred, or who is alleged to have benefited. On those grounds, I'm not inclined to report on generic allegations which are not shown to be connected. - Bilby (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

My view of the scandal is the same as the media and thereby the general community. The Prime Minister is an integral part of it, because that's the way the media is reporting it. If she wasn't involved, then it wouldn't be front page news. And we wouldn't have this article, most likely. --Pete (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute that Julia Gillard I caught up in the scandal, or that allegations against her is what makes it noteworthy. I just don't believe we need to repeat allegations with no substance if those allegations are not shown to be related the events. That the media raised the $5000 is not in dispute, any more than the claim that Gillard responded. But in the same way that I would argue against covering allegations on other players where those allegations are not shown to be related to the scandal, I don't think we should be giving much weight to this one.

Most of the recent reporting has substance, and should be covered. Blewitt's claim that Gillard didn't properly witness the signing of the power of attorney, the Australian's coverage of the law firms's investigation, and much more is valid reporting and relevant. But this one claim - that her boyfriend once might have asked someone to deposit $5000 into her account after a night at a casino - really does come across as straight smear. As Gillard said yesterday, even if he did have some money deposited into her account, so what? It needs to be shown that it is relevant, and so far it reads as a passing attack with no substance. I'm still waiting to see if something emerges, but it is looking increasingly unlikely. - Bilby (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A scandal does not equate to a crime or even an allegation of a crime. This thing is a scandal because it is current, it has the Prime Minister and her then boyfriend in it, and it involves a lot of money being moved around for dubious reasons. We don't have the bank records showing that Theiss and Woodside put money into the AWU slush fund, do we? --Pete (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Covering a scandal does mean that we should be limited to issues which are shown to relate to that scandal, though. The claim that money was placed into the fund that is the center of the scandal is something relevant. A claim that money may have been placed into an account, without allegations that the account, the reasons, or the source of the money had anything to do with the scandal, is a smear attack. The Australian threw this out there without any evidence - or indeed allegations - that it was relevant, and since then nothing has emerged to show that it is. - Bilby (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Australian's latest mud slinging doesn't belong here

The addition Surturz just put in the article requires the well sourced qualifying comments of "Hem could not confirm that the account was Julia Gillard's, nor was it known where the funds originated from."

I submit that the only point of adding this content is to further slur Gillard, with meaningless conspiracy style comments, in an article that's ostensibly about the AWU. The content adds nothing substantive about the AWU to the article, only dirt aimed at Gillard. It doesn't belong. If no decent argument is provided here for its inclusion (What DOES it add to an article about the AWU?), I shall remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Australian seem far-right - kind of innapropriate to use in an article that has accusations against Gillard. I support it's removal, as it poses allegations, without proof - Wikipedia shouldn't buy into that crap. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The story has also been covered in smh: [6]. The Australian is a WP:RS, despite your assertions to the contrary. --Surturz (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You will almost certainly not see the problems with The Australian as a source on Australian politic matters. That's sad, but true. There's no point arguing about it. The reality is that we won't agree. My major point is that there is actually nothing in The Australian's story that belongs in this article about the AWU. You will obviously disagree with me on that too, but again, you won't gain consensus by looking my way. HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it unlikely that this story, on its own, will amount to much. In essence, the claim is that Gillard's partner at the time once asked someone to deposit some money into what might have been her account - without more information (where did the money come from, why was it deposited, was it her account, did it really happen) it is pretty much a dead-end line of inquiry. Perhaps more information will emerge and provide that context, but on its own it seems meaningless, and is only circumstantially connected to the AWU issue. Of more interest is Blewitt's request for immunity. I guess we'll see what happens there. - Bilby (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about the AWU scandal, which has already prompted the Prime Minister to hold a very long press conference and is the daily focus of media attention and questions in parliament. This goes well beyond one journalist in one newspaper. It is undeniably notable. HiLo, your concerns about The Australian are heard and noted, but given that paper's long use here in Wikipedia as a reliable source for all manner of articles, many of them political, few of them controversial, I think you would be better off highlighting your specific concerns relevant to this article, rather than blanket-condemning its entire output. There is room here for all editors and all views, and your contributions are welcome. --Pete (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Pete, the AWU scandal is the topic here, not me. Please drop your obsession with me. And this post counts as my response to every subsequent post you make that is about me or addressed to me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The claims that The Australian is part of some right-wing smear campaign is simply unsupported by the facts:

• All of the claims against Gillard are being made by trade unionists
• Hedley Thomas, the main investigative reporter on the AWU scandal, was just as relentless in his investigations of the Howard government over the Haneef affair (see [7])
• ABC's Media Watch spent a whole episode examining whether The Australian's coverage of the AWU scandal was "rumour-mongering", and had this to say:

  ...thorough, professional, accurate reporting on issues like this, that otherwise fester in the murk of the internet, is a good thing, not a bad one. It’s what journalists ought to do.[8]

Ultimately we should not confuse the newspaper's intense scrutiny of the government of the day, with partisan reporting. The Australian is the highest quality broadsheet in Australia, and it is disappointing that editors are so quick to dismiss it here as a rag for cleaning up dog faeces. --Surturz (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is clear, and unsurprising. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, back to the topic. I suggested above that Surturz's addition actually adds nothing substantive about the AWU to the article, is merely a political slur with huge doubt surrounding it and nothing solid behind it, and invited comment. Sadly, this led to more attacks on and comment about me than anything constructive about the article. There has been defence of the source, but that's not relevant to whether this content is due. It's not, and there has been no effective defence of it. I shall delete it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted HiLo48's removal of the content. It is reliably sourced and on-topic. I have provided WP:V references above[9][10] to disprove his assertion that The Australian is "mud-slinging". HiLo48, please provide reliable references to support your claims. --Surturz (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussing this with you is neither a pleasant nor rational experience. Nobody is arguing about the sourcing, yet you make that your first point of argument. Not a rational response at all. You then say it is "on-topic". Please explain precisely what "topic" it is "on". And it would have been more polite to discuss before reverting. Oh, and don't play the silly "reliable references" game about the position of The Australian. We all know nothing of that kind will convince you. We also know that The Australian appeals to your political view. Some of us recognise that that is an extreme one at the moment when it comes to the Gillard government. I have already acknowledged that your opinion on it is clear, and unsurprising. Try to see it from the perspective of people not so keen to cover a disliked political foe in mud. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

see my answer to Bilby below. --Surturz (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the section needs some serious trimming. Some coverage seems ok, but "Gillard may once have been given $5,000 by her partner" isn't really a big deal, and restating the renovations claim already raised in the article, when the person who is said to have made it isn't even standing by it, seems a bit too much coverage. Both issues look to be a case of prodding around a bit with the new diary, rather than examples of anything significant. - Bilby (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hem was acting on instructions from Wilson, and informed the then national president of the AWU, Ian Cambridge, of the transaction because of the doubts he had about Wilson and the transaction (a literal brown paper bag full of cash!). Both Hem and Wilson were AWU officials at the time. It is relevant and significant to the scandal and belongs in this article. --Surturz (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Precisely what was the transaction? Whose money was it? Who benefited? Oh, we don't know for sure, do we? but innuendo says.... This really is POV nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't dispute that it warrants some coverage. But at the moment, having some money deposited into what may be your partner's bank account after spending a night at a casino is far from scandalous, unless there is additional evidence - such as information about why it was deposited, or where the money came from. Both of which are completely unknown, as per HiLo48's comment above. Right now, this is a non-issue, and doesn't warrant more than a brief mention. - Bilby (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In returning to this, I'm no longer sure that it belongs here, as the only connection to the AWU scandal is that Cambridge recorded the allegation. There is nothing else to connect it to the scandal, and including it here looks like guilt by association, by suggesting a connection which hasn't been shown to exist. Accordingly I've taken it out for now. - Bilby (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Only need one connection, and it's a contemporary document backed up by the man who recorded it. The essence of the scandal is that the slush fund wasn't condoned by the AWU, their lawyers knew nothing about it, and it was used for non-union purposes. The lawyer who handled the paperwork is now the Prime Minister. Which is why it's notable. --Pete (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be why the scandal is notable. The question is why $5000 that may have been deposited into an account that may have belonged to Julia Gillard, for unknown reasons, which was provided by her then partner, and which has not been shown to have any connection to the slush fund, is significant. The media has dropped the issue after the initial brief coverage, and including it here draws a connection between the deposit and the scandal which The Australian was unwilling to conclude. Given that there is no evidence saying where the funds came from, why they were deposited, or if there was any connection to the AWU scandal, including it here reads like insinuating guilt by association. I was happy to have it remain, in the expectation that some connection would emerge, but none has. Unless there is a connection revealed beyond "Cambridge wrote it down", it really needs to be removed. - Bilby (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There's more to it than that. The $5K deposit was mentioned during discussions on the scandal.[11] Obviously Hems thought it significant enough to mention it to Cambridge. In the context of the developing scandal, and under agreement that he might have to give evidence. Gillard hasn't explained what the money was for when she has had repeated opportunity to do so. If it was no more than Wilson making a deposit into his girlfriend's account, then she could have said so. There's more coming out on a daily basis, and with Blewitt returning to answer questions on the matter, we're going to be hearing more. I'm concerned about what looks like compliance with Gillard's "know-nothing" line. She would prefer it all fade away, but I don't think Wikipedia should follow the same procedure. We are not a branch of the PM's media organisation. --Pete (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There's not really more to it than that. Hem mentioned it to Cambridge, and Cambridge wrote it down. As far as we know, that's the only connection between the $5000 and the AWU scandal. Without anything more to support a connection, including it here is undue. If more comes up in the next few days it may well warrant keeping, and perhaps Blewitt will shed some light. If not, and if this continues to be a non-issue, I think it should be removed. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

We have two different people within the AWU telling the same story, we have multiple reliable secondary sources, we have Julia Gillard refusing to deny the story. Nobody is saying she did anything improper. If it were a poorly-sourced allegation - and there are any number of these - then it would be wrong to stay. But it's not. --Pete (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the sourcing. I'm questioning what it has to do with the AWU scandal. As the only connection is that it was reported to someone investigating the scandal, the answer at the moment is "not much, if anything". Unless it becomes relevant, it is undue. - Bilby (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

As would be obvious from the first post in this thread, I'm 100% with Bilby on this. After all, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and everything here must comply with WP:BLP. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You were questioning the sourcing, saying there was only one link. We have both Hems and Cambridge saying the same thing at the time and confirming it now. That's a lot more than you were implying above. The relevance is a financial link between Wilson and Gillard conducted via an AWU official that is not part of the AWU's official business. The involvement of Wilson in unofficial financial dealings is what makes it a scandal, the involvement of the now Prime Minister makes it especially notable, the amount of money makes it non-trivial. This story is reliably sourced and pertinent to every bit of the article's subject. --Pete (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"...there is no evidence saying where the funds came from, why they were deposited, or if there was any connection to the AWU scandal..." HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In 1991, while she was a lawyer with the firm Slater & Gordon in Melbourne, Gillard was also in a romantic relationship with Bruce Wilson who was married with two kids and a wife in Perth at the time. People need to know the Bruce wilson's background at the time when they had the affair and hence this needs to be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhorsetrader (talk • contribs) 07:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

To review and incorporate

[12][13][14][15][16] --Surturz (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Strongly denied?

Bilby, you inserted the following: "Although the statements have not been released, Blewitt alleged that Gillard did not properly witness the signing of a legal power of attorney – an allegation strongly denied by Gillard, who also questioned Blewitt's credibility." Looking at the source provided, we have Phillip Coory saying, "Ms Gillard denied this." So where did the "strongly" come from?

If we look at the transcript of the press conference, there is in fact no denial at all:

JOURNALIST: One of the allegations made by Ralph Blewitt is that the power of attorney here, which you witnessed, you weren't actually present when it was witnessed. I think he told Michael Smith as recently as October that he can remember signing it or thereabouts on 4 February and yet it was dated 23 February. So were you there to witness this power of attorney?

A question requiring a simple yes or no answer. Instead we get five paragraphs where she talks about thousands of other transactions and smears Blewitt's character. The question is in fact asked two more times, seeking a specific answer, which is not actually provided. --Pete (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree, All we've had is long rants when a simple yes or no answer is what was asked for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhorsetrader (talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the transcript, immediately following the question:

Gillard: I've said publicly on more than one occasion I did nothing wrong, and I did nothing wrong in the witnessing of this power of attorney. I witnessed thousands and thousands and thousands of documents for clients during an eight-year – I'll answer your question – I witnessed thousands and thousands of documents over an eight-year legal career for clients and I did that witnessing properly.

She then follows that with an extended attack on Blewitt's credibility. She clearly denied the allegation. Whether or not it was a strong denial is something I guess is best left to interpretation, and I'm happy for that to be left out. - Bilby (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is the clear denial? She was asked three times if she was there, and three times she avoided giving a clear answer. Yes, I know she says she "did that witnessing properly", but I'm uncomfortable with the evasion of the direct question, and I'm also made uneasy by the ad hom attack. She's a lawyer, she knows very well she's not providing a direct answer to a direct question. In court, the question would be put again until a clear answer was given. --Pete (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, she's not in court. :) I can't see how that was anything other than a denial, unless you want to argue that she can say she can claim to have properly witnessed the signing without seeing the signatories signing the document, and that would be a hard sell. At any rate, both The Australian and the SMH reported her statements as a denial. [17][18] - Bilby (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If we have two good sources saying its a denial, then we can say she denied it. That's okay. Likewise "strong denial", but we don't have a good source for that. If her words in the transcript constituted an emphatic denial, then we could use an appropriate qualifier, and I wouldn't quibble over your choice of words. My point here is that her statement wasn't a denial as such. She didn't directly deny Blewitt's allegation, and she rather lumped in the incident with the thousands of other signatures she witnessed, claiming that every one of them was properly witnessed and she has no recollection of any particular one. Well, I dunno. If Blewitt was in Perth and Gillard was in Melbourne, then one or the other must have travelled in order for Gillard to witness Blewitt's signature. Or maybe they met in the middle of the Nullarbor. Anyways, if she had said she remembered the event, she definitely witnessed Blewitt's signature and then went on to attack his character, then that would be a strong denial. But her words stop well short of that point. It's like someone claims they saw you drive through a red light at the intersection of Constitution and Kings Avenues, and you say that can't be right because you never drive through red lights. --Pete (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, and as mentioned above I have no problem with removing "strongly". However, if someone asks, "did you drive through that red light?" and you respond with "I handled that red light correctly, and I always handle red lights correctly", then that is a denial. Perhaps not the denial they were looking for, but a denial just the same. - Bilby (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to drive through a red light legally and correctly. For example, if directed to do so by a policeman handling a traffic accident at the intersection. I don't know the circumstances under which a signature may be witnessed, but possibly it can be performed without the two parties being co-located, or with a time delay. For example, a signature may be legally witnessed if the signatory is physically incapable of signing through injury or other circumstances. I remember my uncle very distressed when he needed to have his wife (lying unconscious in a Melbourne hospital) sign some legal document. A doctor gently informed him that "there are other ways" to get it done. And it was done, without my aunt actually signing the paper. All the way through the various answers given by Julia Gillard to direct questions, there is this vagueness and imprecision in her wording. She seems to be trying to give an impression that she has answered a question, when in fact she has not. One tactic is to refer the questioner to answers given on previous occasions, when a different question was asked, or a direct answer evaded. Instead of finding a firm foundation, one is left struggling in gloopy mud, never a rock to hold onto. I'm not saying that only Gillard does this - it is a tactic endemic to all politicians, and Yes Minister gives many splendid examples - just that we need to look carefully at what is actually said, rather than what is implied. --Pete (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

At this point, this has become somewhat pointless. It think we've accepted that we can say that she denied Blewitts' claim, and move on. - Bilby (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Why have this article?

Why is this rumour significant from an encyclopedic point of view? What is scandalous about an allegation? We need to distinguish ourselves and show some discernment about what is pure political muckraking from press with an agenda and what is valuable knowledge about unions and politicians. The police have investigated it and left it alone, why can't we do the same? If we are going to have an article about it, why is this called a scandal? Its not a neutral title because it implies impropriety. Shouldn't it be along the lines of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories? - Shiftchange (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This article has already survived a lengthy WP:CSD discussion - see the talk archive here. It satisfies WP:EVENT, and is getting national coverage on News Limited, Fairfax, and the ABC. If you think it should be deleted please raise an WP:AfD. --Surturz (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There is not one thing that is significant, interesting, or unusual about an allegation without evidence. Therefore it fails WP:EVENT. Had I been aware the article existed I would of contributed to the previous discussion. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a story about muckraking by The Australian and the Liberal Party. Both hope to get rid of Gillard and her government. And some of the muckraking is occurring in federal parliament, so it is news. Both the Oz and the Libs hate unions too, and the article helps paint a union in a bad light, so the two main promoters of this article are pleased with it. If the muckraking over Gillard is successful, this article will be justified. If not, interest in this matter should disappear. But sadly, I suspect that no matter how little real evidence exists to implicate Gillard (none exists yet), the muckraking will continue for as long as she is there. So, sadly, will this article. It's not a good look for the body supposed to be running this country. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The key point you have made is that there is no evidence to support the allegations. We should leave the gossip for the tabloids, trashy magazines and desperate politicians. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless the police reopen investigations, I'm not convinced anything is every going to come of this. But it has had significant coverage, so unfortunately at at this point would survive at AfD.

That said, I also agree with you about the name - "scandal" presupposes that something scandalous occurred, and so far there hasn't been any proof that it did. The locus of the issue was the association, rather than the AWU, so I have no problems with renaming it to something more neutral such as "AWU Workplace Reform Association controversy" or some such. I think there's been a controversy, but no scandal. - Bilby (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It is commonly called the AWU scandal [19][20][21][22][23] ABC, Fairfax, News Limited, all call it that. --Surturz (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit confusing. News Limited, Fairfax and the ABC also refer to it as the "AWU controversy", [24][25][26], and we also get "AWU affair", [27][28][29][30]. I don't think that any name is necessarily going to be perfect, but "scandal" does have the BLP concern that it assumes something did happen, when all we have allegations. "Controversy" and "affair" are both used in the media, and don't carry the same baggage. On those grounds, I'd go with "AWU controversy", as there is no doubt the there has been a controversy about the events. :) - Bilby (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. HiLo48 (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It sounds unreasonable to me. There is no scandal here, its not a notable event, just an allegation. Scandals occur when some wrong-doing has been proven to have been done by a high-profile person or organisation, for example, the AWB Oil-for-Wheat Scandal. The allegation is a theory that Gillard conspired to undertake some criminality. The position of those bringing forth these allegations is therefore a conspiracy theory. - Shiftchange (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is, and it's ironic that those who most hate unions and unionists are now cherry-picking from among their ranks to find someone to say something they like. But sad as it is, this crap IS what our politicians are talking about in parliament at the moment, rather than trying to make this a better country. So, sadly again, we are more or less forced to record their idiotic, non-productive time wasting here. But anyway, read the above suggestion carefully. Bilby is suggesting "AWU controversy" rather than "AWU scandal". It would be more honest to call it "AWU mud-slinging", but I doubt if that suggestion will have wings among the rusted on Lib lovers. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Bilby for providing references demonstrating the different names used. I have no problem with AWU scandal, AWU controversy, AWU Affair, or any other title commonly used in the press, provided we redirect the other options (I think I titled the initial version of this article "The Wilson Affair" which had an unintentional second meaning to which I was oblivious at the time :-). I'm not particularly concerned with the actual title, as long as readers can find the article with whatever search term they enter. --Surturz (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree article would be better to drop word "scandal" and replace with "affair". To the mischievous efforts to delete it all together however - no. It needs close attention though as the Labor and Liberal plants will clearly be doing their darndest on this one.Observoz (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Word Scandal as defined by the Oxford dictionary is

an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage: Which is precisely what this is , Unionists stealing money — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhorsetrader (talk • contribs) 10:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Gillard uses Socialist Forum cut'n'paste to convince WA that slush fund is legitimate

Breaking story in The Australian, likely to be the focus of today's Question Time: Proof: PM told firm what she won't tell parliament. When Western Australia balked at incorporating the Wilson/Blewitt AWU election slush fund later used to send phony invoices to legitimate companies, Gillard wrote to them assuring the registrar of its bona fides, using text she cut and pasted from the Melbourne University "Socialist Forum". She admits sending the letter in an interview with senior partners in her law firm, but her recent answers to Parliament have been evasive. What others might call "strong denials". This isn't a Liberal or media plot. This is ex-union officials and ex-colleagues sinking the boot into Gillard. The Opposition may be rubbing their hands with glee, and The Australian may be selling a pile of their pay wall tickets (though if you google the headline, you generally find a free copy of the article), but the source material is coming straight from those who knew Gillard best, back in the day. Frankly, I'm getting a little weary of the "Liberal smear" line. The Libs are definitely exploiting this stuff, but it's Labor people who are trucking in the ammo. --Pete (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Pete, if you read the source, you will see that it says "she 'cut and pasted' some of the rules from her earlier personal work incorporating the controversial Socialist Forum". In other words, it says she copied her own work - that's not exactly a major problem. Bad form, yes, but copying your own writing isn't going to bring down a government. And no, she hasn't been strongly denying writing the letter - she's has been saying she can't recall writing the letter, which, after almost 20 years, isn't exactly a surprise, especially if she didn't put a lot of work into the thing. Let's see where it goes, and I think this will give the Liberal party a bit more substance, but I can't see it making a big difference. - Bilby (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see copying the rules as a problem in plagiarism or anything. I see it as demonstrating a greater role in establishing the organisation than she wishes to admit. Likewise the letter to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission - she didn't just provide legal advice, she had an active hand in its establishment. Her claims then that it had no union links are at variance with her more recent claims that it was a fund for re-electing union officials. There are limits to the "I can't remember" defence. Surely she has a copy of the 1995 interview transcript which Nick Styant-Browne is cheerfully serialising. --Pete (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any "alleged" about it. Looking at the relevant portion of the transcript, Gillard admits that she drafted the rules and wrote the letter without reference to anybody else at Slater & Gordon. --Pete (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

She drafted a letter. What isn't clear is what the letter claimed. Did she state that it wasn't a trade union, trade union organisation, or didn't have links to the trade union? The transcript just says that she argued that it shouldn't be regarded as a trade union, and the Labor party will today take the line that it wasn't a trade union, and therefore she did nothing wrong. Any further claims are allegations, and the wording of the transcript doesn't make it clear how strongly the "not a union" claim was made. - Bilby (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. The claims that it went beyond "not a trade union" are coming from media sources - reliable sources - so "alleged" is in order there. I rather suspect we're going to hear a lot more about this affair today and in the days to come. Interesting that Gillard is confident the letter itself isn't going to surface - she obviously didn't keep a copy in the S&G file because there was no file, but how can she be sure about what's in the WA government archives? --Pete (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Evasions

One continuing aspect to the story which we have not fully covered is the evasiveness of Gillard when asked to provide details. The Australian in particular has published lists of questions that Gillard should answer and repeatedly noted inconsistencies in her statements. This aspect of the affair is not limited to one media outlet, of course - a search on "Gillard" and "evasive" comes up with a list. This one is a good example. We should incorporate this aspect in the article. --Pete (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you start the Tony Abbott carbon tax scandal page? We need to document all the allegations he made about the impact of the carbon tax on the Australian economy. In particularly we need to cover the source of his claims that particular industries will be destroyed, town will disappear and whatever other outrageous and completely bogus claims he has made in the last few years. We should go through all the news articles with his quotes and see where he was vague and evasive about his claims. It has been covered by multiple media outlets so we have lots of evidence regarding this scandal. If you start that, I will collect some garlic, mistletoe and a wolf's head. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Acting in conflict of interest

Ms Gillard has repeatedly said that she "has done nothing wrong" But it seems absolutely certain on the documented facts that she has in fact done something wrong. She acted for Wilson and Blewitt to assist them set up an association for their own benefit in conflict of interest with her duty as a solicitor to her client the AWU. Acting in conflict of interest is a breach of legal and ethical duty as a solicitor and punishable by the Legal Services Commission under the Legal Profession Act. Nmgwishy (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And if you were a WP:RS reliable source - we could use what you know. Your aren't. We can't. Collect (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The SMH is WP:RS http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-law-firm-claims-awu-case-presented-conflict-20121127-2a5ug.html . She did act in conflict of interest. This was a breach of her legal duties as a lawyer. I don't have the source for this but I believe there is a 6 year statute of limitations (reference anyone?) on prosecutions of lawyers under the Legal Profession Act. So she perhaps she did not do anything wrong that she could still be prosecuted for by law enforcement, if acting in conflict was the only thing she did wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.147.90 (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That article appears to be a tad misleading. There was a potential COI, but this would only have arisen at the point where Gillard had to act against Wilson or the AWU. So a COI didn't appear until the point where she was informed that Wilson may have been defrauding the AWU. When that happened Gillard ceased acting for Wilson and ended her relationship, so she acted appropriately when the conflict emerged. However, that also gave rise to an actual conflict of interest in the firm, where they had been acting for both Wilson and the AWU, and now had information regarding one client (Wilson) which could be used by a second client (the AWU) in opposition to Wilson. They sought legal advice, and, as there was now a COI, ceased acting for both. - Bilby (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your opinions about conflict of interest are incorrect. From a legal professional ethical perspective, the conflict was inherent and existed on day 1 because the purpose of the association as she understood it was for the benefit of the reelection of the individuals she was acting for, not for the firm's client which was the AWU. If a solicitor acting for BHP began (without first obtaining BHP's informed consent) also acting for the Chairman of BHP to help him set up a company called "BHP Reform Pty Ltd" to fund his re-election as Chairman, there would be the same kind of inherent conflict. It's arguable how serious this lapse of legal professional ethics was and whether the penalty imposed would be more than minor, but it is an infringement of legal professional ethics nonetheless. In this instance the infringement is aggravated by (a) her not opening a file, (b) the fact that she was in sexual relationship with Wilson and (c) the fact that AWU's own rules prohibited setting up an association without a formal resolution of the AWU which she must have known as their solicitor. She would not have been struck off, but she may have been fined or disciplined with a formal sanction of finding of wrongdoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.147.88 (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, I'm not relying on my own opinion, but on coverage on the issue. According to The Australian, which isn't exactly biased towards Gillard on the issue, the COI issue that Slater & Gordon had investigated (and referred to in Baker's somewhat misleading article you linked to above) was their conflict of interest - caused by Wilson's actions - between the firm, Wilson and the AWU. This wasn't about Gillard's potential COI. - Bilby (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you misunderstand the relevant principles. Gillard was a salaried partner of Slater & Gordon. Her conflict of interest was their conflict of interest too. However the fact she had failed to open a file (and thus kept the rest of her partners in the dark about her acting in conflict) meant that only she was breaching legal professional ethics on day 1. The firm acted appropriately later as soon as it became aware of matters. The fraud committed by Wilson and Blewitt just made matters much worse but the breach of professional ethics of acting in conflict of interest was there before there was any fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.147.44 (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

| Styant-Browne seems to have believed a conflict arose owing to Gillard's romantic relationship with Wilson (which he says was undeclared), given that she was conducting pro-bono work for Wilson on behalf of Slater & Gordon (without a file).Observoz (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Gillard seems to think that there was no COI, because she was dealing with the AWU in the form of two elected officials of the AWU:

JOURNALIST: Back to the original issue of the advice that you provided in the establishment of the AWU Workplace Reform Fund. Did you seek advice from the AWU, or seek authorisation from the AWU as your client, to use the AWU in the title of the incorporation? And did you seek advice or get that advice direct from Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt as your clients? Who was your client in this and did you have any specific authority to use the AWU's name?,,

PM: Well, let's be clear about this and let's be common sense about it. Unions aren't big blancmange things that wander around talking for themselves in the some way that companies don't. Companies speak through company office bearers, unions speak through elected officials. The people I was dealing with, Mr Blewitt and Mr Wilson, were both office holders of the AWU. My client in creating the Workplace Reform Association was Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt acting as representatives as a team of officials who were going to run together for election in the trade union. But did I need to separately advise the AWU this was occurring? Of course I didn't. The people I was dealing with were elected officials of the AWU.[31]

The fact that one of these officials was her boyfriend, she did not open a file or charge for the work, and she did not tell her employers about the work seems to be irrelevant in Gillard's eyes. --Pete (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The conflict was that she was acting for these two elected officials in their personal capacity as her client in the matter and in their interests - to be reelected as officials - whose interests differed from the interests of her client the AWU. It's a whole another conflict but perhaps not so black and white that one was her boyfriend. Not opening a file when the advice was serious and involved setting up a new legal entity to receive money is most unusual practice but not a conflict of interest per se. Nmgwishy (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not opening a file - relevance

The requirement in legal practice to "open a file" does not have the literal meaning of just keeping the relevant documents in a separate folder or file. Opening a file means putting openly on the record the name of the client and what the matter is about so the managing partner and all the other partners of the firm can see what work is going on. It is required for proper record keeping. It is required for transparency and accountability because partners in a law firm are jointly and severally responsible for each other's work. It is required to help prevent conflicts of interest, e.g. to enable checking that a new file does not conflict with an existing or past client. It is required so that time spent can be allocated on time sheets to the correct client charge code. It is required for professional indemnity insurance purposes. Not opening a file for a material piece of work, such as in this case incorporating an association, may not be professional misconduct per se, but could be seen in itself as a very serious breach of trust and responsibility to the firm. Gillard herself has accepted that not opening a file was a mistake. This mistake that Gillard admits facilitated everything that followed. This mistake was what caused the most disquiet at the Slater & Gordon partnership, e.g. Peter Gordon's draft statement: "the partnership was extremely unhappy with Ms Gillard considering that proper vigilance had not been observed, and that (her) duties of utmost good faith to (her) partners especially as to timely disclosure had not been met. Ms Gillard elected to resign and we accepted her resignation without discussion" If a file had been opened by Gillard on this matter then the transparency and accountability that resulted from opening a file would most likely have meant that the work never got done and that the ultimate fraud never happened. Because someone in Slater and Gordon would have said when they saw the new file opened on the system, what is this new matter? why are we acting for two officials to help them get re-elected? why are you acting for your boyfriend? does the AWU itself know about the work and the proposed new association? These kinds of questions would have nipped the whole thing in the bud. Nmgwishy (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The rub of the case against Gillard in not opening a file is the question of what was her motive in not opening a file. She has said it was an honest mistake, just an oversight. The problem with her explanation is that: (1) Styant Brown says "this was not passing advice to a rank-and-file union member; this matter involved the incorporation of a legal entity and it was most unusual that a file was not opened"; (2) there was a conflict of interest between Wilson and Blewitt's own interests and the interests of Slater & Gordon's client AWU; (3) Wilson was Gillard's boyfriend so there was a further complication of possible conflict; (4) the name of the association "The AWU Workplace Reform Association" instead of say ("The Wilson and Blewitt Reelection Fund") implied the association had an official AWU status that allowed Wilson and Blewitt to set up bank accounts in this "AWU" name and obtain payments to this account from companies on the assumption the payments were going to the AWU rather than to Wilson and Blewitt (5) her own reference to the association being a "slush fund" implies she knew the use of "AWU" in the association name inappropriately implied some official AWU status and that the true purpose of the association needed concealment for those purposes to be effective; (6) her boyfriend Wilson later used moneys he fraudulently obtained to buy a house (in part with Gillard's assistance including by drafting a power of attorney for Blewitt to buy it in his name for Wilson, and by arranging a mortgage from Slater & Gordon) which house Gillard herself used with Wilson in her capacity as his girlfriend; and finally (7) she resigned from her position as a salaried partner of Slater & Gordon after being confronted by her partners about these and related issues. If not opening a file was an honest mistake (and the only direct evidence we have about her state of mind at the time is her word, including her further explanation that she was "young and naive") then facts (1)-(7) make it harder to believe her. Styant Brown says: "There was a spectrum of views across the partnership and Peter Gordon has said that he was willing to give Julia Gillard the benefit of the doubt, so that was one end of the spectrum. I was towards the other end of the spectrum in that I was not readily prepared to give Ms Gillard the benefit of the doubt and I made that clear. There was never any real resolution of that debate in the partnership because as events transpired, Ms Gillard agreed to resign, and so it was never necessary for the partnership to resolve itself what actions should be taken.". Nmgwishy (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is Gillard says she's "done nothing wrong" but that is not true on her own admissions. She has admitted she did in fact do something wrong - not opening a file, thereby not informing her partners about the work she was doing for Wilson and Blewitt. Even if her not opening a file and not informing her partners was an honest mistake, it was still wrong. Wrong enough to have her partners very angry about it. At a minimum her "I did nothing wrong" statement should be qualified by this. If not opening a file was intentional concealment (e.g. because the obvious point that acting for Wilson and Blewitt to help them set up a misleadingly named "slush fund" for their reelection was a conflict of interest with her duty to her client the AWU and legal ethics and her partners would not have allowed it), then she was a willing party to the whole sordid affair. Nmgwishy (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And I'll bet you've never voted Labor in your life. Your synthesis is irrelevant, unacceptable, and blatantly POV. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You can spare the personal abuse. Here's a reference to where she admits she should have opened a file. The "I have done nothing wrong" part of the main article should be qualified that she has admitted that she should have opened a file to notify her partners of her work on Slater & Gordon's behalf for Wilson and Blewitt. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillard-i-should-have-opened-file/story-fn59niix-1226455335579 Nmgwishy (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no personal abuse there. Have you looked at WP:SYNTH? HiLo48 (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If I could ask both parties to leave out any speculations as to the motives or personalities of other editors, please? Nmgwishy, welcome to the discussion, but we need a source to make the point you raise, which is a good one, but not one we can put forward as our own insight. The discrepancies between Gillard's statements in the mid-90s and now, as well as her evasions of specific answers are the subject of several newspaper articles. The Australian has published at least three sets of questions which Gillard has not answered. As with Watergate, the real story is not the actions in the past, but the ongoing whitewash. Gillard's mantra that she did nothing wrong doesn't square with her admissions to Slater & Gordon. --Pete (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Understanding the real motives and goals and others is an essential part of the way I have been taught to negotiate. I use such an approach routinely in my daily work. I see no reason to change here. There is a problem if editors don't want their real motives and goals recognised. It would strike me as being pretty dishonest, either with others or themselves. And please stop pushing The Australian as the major source here. IT'S goals are blatantly obvious. Use it if you must, but find other, more objective sources too. And can we drop the mantra of "questions to answer"? It's in no way encyclopaedic, and is just the cliché the anti-Labor campaigners have adopted. Can you really imagine a serious encyclopaedia using that expression elsewhere? HiLo48 (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Understanding "real motives and goals" is important, but when we guesses and gets it wrong, we are setting ourselveses up for failure and misunderstanding. Guessing about the voting histories of other editors, based on a few words on a talk page doesn't sound like an impressive winning strategy to me. Guessing about the goals of media outlets likewise, unless the answer is "to sell more papers". I used The Australian as an example of a paper that has published lists of questions for Gillard to answer. Other outlets may have done similar, but I remember The Australian's because they are pursuing the details. Much like The Washington Post hunted down the details of Watergate. Not every political journalist is a card-carrying member of a cheer squad. The very best, such as Paul Kelly, Michelle Grattan and Laurie Oakes earn their money by attracting readers or viewers, not votes. Unlike a PR staffer, journalists are pushing information, not propaganda. We should aim for the same goal. --Pete (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I disagree with most of that post. But I won't debate it. I know there's no point. HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Page ratings

I just noticed the page ratings at the bottom of the article:

• Trustworthy 4.0 (40 ratings)
• Objective 5.0 (37 ratings)
• Complete 4.0 (38 ratings)
• Well-written 4.0 (40 ratings)

I reckon that's pretty good for such a controversial topic! Well done all. --Surturz (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

michaelsmithnews.com

Does not meet WP:RS and does not meer WP:BLP for any contentious claims about living persons. Collect (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Also note the "timeline" relying on a non-RS source is a blatant copyright violation as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it again after it was added back, as I think you're correct about this. michaelsmithnews.com can't be taken as a reliable source for contentious statements, but even if that was possible, (and I can't see that being the case), many of the links are to articles republished on the website presumably without the permission of the copyright holders, so we run into a problem with contributory liability. - Bilby (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Gillard's resignation from Slater & Gordon

There's a bit of a dispute about the wording of this, so I thought I'd bring it here to see where consensus lies. The original wording of Gillard's resignation in the lead was:

After stating that she had no intention of leaving Slater & Gordon, Gillard took leave from the firm prior to the conclusion of the investigation and resigned to pursue a political career.

Dhorsetrader‎ has changed that to:

After stating that she had no intention of leaving Slater & Gordon, Gillard abruptly left the firm prior to the conclusion of the investigation and resigned to pursue a political career.

My feeling is that the use of the term "abruptly" is a bit problematic. There is some support for this, as in the timeline published by The Australian [32] it states "October 1995: Gillard abruptly leaves Slater & Gordon". However, there are concerns about the neutrality of The Australian, and other sources, such as Peter Grech, give a different account [33].

My preference is not to use the more colourful language of "abruptly", and just leave it as a statement that she took leave and later resigned. But given the wide range of views here, it seems better to see where we sit. - Bilby (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There IS a wide spectrum of views on the matter, many based on the party the person expressing the opinion normally votes for, which is sad. As you say, on that spectrum, The Australian is obviously at one extreme. A middle of the road position for Wikipedia is to leave out the word "abruptly". It has no specific meaning and serves no other purpose than to add POV to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the problematic judgemental term "abruptly." Collect (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Abruptly is not merely colourful language, the decision to leave was abrupt because she had clearly announced in the week before that she had no intention of leaving Slater and Gordon, and a week later she was abruptly gone.

Abrupt as defined in the dictionary is

Sudden and unexpected. Brief to the point of rudeness; curt.

This is what the situation was and has been correctly described as such by the Australian, So I have reinstated Abruptly back in the article.

.

The Australian has by far the most comprehensive coverage of the matter anywhere, so abruptly has to come back as it shows the obvious contradiction to what she claimed before.

Oh dear.

Firstly, please sign your posts. Secondly, do pay some attention to what others say, and stop trying to convince the world that Gillard is the embodiment of all things evil. Your approach is not one of discussion. It's one of political POV pushing, and I don't think you even realise it. Can you see that others disagree with you? HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AWU affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/15518911/a-poisonous-end-to-the-year/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130131055817/http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/transcript-press-conference-36 to http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/transcript-press-conference-36
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120828035057/http://www.pm.gov.au:80/press-office/transcript-press-conference-canberra-30 to http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/transcript-press-conference-canberra-30

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)