Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Janet Albrechtsen's ABC-AWU analogy on Q and A

There is so much to be suspicious about in Gillard's involvement in the AWU scandal that it amazes me it's taken this long for most Aussie journos to start looking in depth at it. Apart from numerous, very specific questions regarding certain aspects of the fraud that she hasn't answered, there's the issue of the slush fund's genesis.

Yesterday Gillard's excuse for why she didn't alert the AWU about its existence was because, er, the crooks defrauding it effectively were the AWU. How could anyone in their right mind buy that? Yet many in the press gallery have.

If people do find it hard to grasp why some people might find the way she operated more than a bit dodgy, then they should read or watch a former lawyer's very useful analogy for Gillard's deeply suss conduct

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: If you go back and look - well, I don't know about that. If you go back and look at the crux of this and, Barnaby, you seem to be struggling with what the problem is. The problem is pretty clear and let me try to put it in user-friendly terms here tonight. Let's say I am a partner at a law firm and that law firm has, as its big client, the ABC. Now, let's say Tony Jones works for the ABC and he happens to be my boyfriend.

TONY JONES: For argument's sake.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: For argument's sake. And Tony wants to set up...

BARNABY JOYCE: Yeah, I’m struggling with that. I’m struggling with that.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: No. No. No. Stay with me.

BARNABY JOYCE: I’m struggling with that part.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: Tony wants to set up a slush fund to gather funds for re-election of him as staff elected director onto the ABC. Now, what do I do as a girlfriend? I say...

BARNABY JOYCE: Divorce him.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: I can do two things. I can say, look, there’s a bit of a conflict here. I should probably hand it over to someone else at the law firm. I don't do that. In fact, I give the legal advice not only to set up - to establish a trust fund for Tony, my boyfriend, but also to set up a fund...

TONY JONES: Janet, my mind is spinning. Do you mind sort of...

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: ...to set up a fund that is called...

TONY JONES: I’ve become the Bruce Wilson in the equation.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: It improves. It improves.

PENNY WONG: That makes you Julia.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: There’s a happy ending so let me come to the happy ending. The fund is called the ABC Workplace Reform Association.

PENNY WONG: This is getting worse and I’m getting a bit stressed by it. Would you like me to move?

TONY JONES: Certainly not.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: Now, as a lawyer, I’m very familiar with ABC rules. I know that you can't set up an association using the letters ABC without authorisation. It was not authorised. What do I do next? I decide not to open a file. I'm a lawyer. I've got fiduciary duties to my partners at a law firm. I choose not to tell those partners about this matter. I’m a lawyer. I’ve got fiduciary duties to the firms major client, the ABC, but I choose not to tell other members of the ABC that I’m doing work on the side for my boyfriend to set up a fund using the letters ABC for the purposes that have nothing to do with workplace reform.

This was a really good way of describing what happened because it might actually make some ABC luvvies twig to how dodgy Gillard was right from the outset. Surely, having that beloved three letter acronym used in such an obviously deceptive and secretive way would send them all into an indignant rage. So, no wonder people in Gillard's law firm and the AWU were appalled at what she did way back then. And no wonder anyone with any sense of morality and professional standards is appalled when they read about it now.


  1. Or rather it was a highly confused analogy with no particular theme running through it. She made a fool of herself and the look of disdain on Senator Wong's face said it all.

    1. Well Nonny I don't know what your definition of confused is [unless it is from the New Abused Macquarie Dictionary] but it is pretty bloody clear. Janet Albrechtson explained it well and as for Senator Wong she looks at anyone who does not agree with her twisted view of the world with disdain. The humour in that is that she doesn't realise how pathetic she is. Just the usual no real job, lack of real life experience, labour hack.

  2. Nothing confusing about it and Ms Wong looks at anyone with an opposing point of view with distain.

  3. As a lawyer myself, I thought Janet Albrechtsen was inspired last night. The mind boggles when I hear journalists and politicians say things like - 'there have been no substantial allegations made to date', 'there is no smoking gun' and 'nothing to see here.' What on earth do you mean? Read any conflicts section of a legal professional conduct text and red lights start flashing. There are definite questions to answer. It is of course true that having a dodgy boyfriend does not make you dodgy. However, acting as a lawyer for your dodgy boyfriend and not taking the necessary to steps to ensure that the client and your partners are aware of what you are doing is dodgy in the extreme.

  4. Janet A was outstanding on Q&A. she is beautiful deeply intelligent, why in the name of God she goes on Q&A is a mystery to me.

  5. Janet A.is nobody's fool & her experience on the board of the ABC gives her the right to make the analogy in the hope that Aunty's cheer squad, and a lot of Lefties, more clearly appreciate Gillard's misconduct. What does grate in all of this is how Windsor & Oakeshott especially, can ignore such transparently corrupt conduct & continue to give Gillard their complete support.

  6. "Janet A was outstanding on Q&A. she is beautiful"

    Janet A is a neocon who uses false narratives and tortured invective to push a repulsive ideological agenda. Beauty goes beyond skin deep; scratch the surface and you find something very ugly indeed.