ASHLEIGH GILLON:
Welcome back to the program, joining us this morning the Liberals' Bruce Billson and Labor's David Bradbury, good morning to you both. Bruce, let's start with you. You would've heard of course Bill Shorten saying there that the Prime Minister has done nothing wrong, this new revelation today with new documents coming from this exit interview with Slater and Gordon some 17 years ago, doesn't really change anything. He is saying, put the allegations to us, what is the allegation and do you think today really does change the game here?
BRUCE BILLSON:
I think it does change the game. What's become clear from the exit interview and the facts put on the table about the role of the Prime Minister in her advice as Bill Shorten calls it, she's provided the ways and means for extraordinary fraud against union members when this entity which was trying to look like a union work safety fund but then not look like a union safety fund gets put to the Western Australian authorities and they say this looks like a union safety fund, the Prime Minister then goes and defends, argues the case, no, no, no, nothing to do with the union, but then in the next breath says it's all about the union and that she's done nothing wrong. You can't have it both ways, we're supposed to accept there is this extraordinary recall about details of house renovations but gee, $5,000 landed in my bank account, I don't know anything about that. Extraordinary detail about certain aspects of the formation of this incorporated association but gee, I don't know anything about a part of that. Five questions asked of her in Parliament yesterday about did she vouch for the bona-fides of this entity that provided the ways and means to defraud hundreds of thousands of dollars against the union, she wouldn't answer. So much so, the Speaker, the Labor Speaker, sat her down because she couldn't answer and wouldn't answer the question. The question needs to be answered if...
GILLON:
So can I just clarify Bruce today are you 'A' accusing Julia Gillard of breaking the law and 'B' accusing Julia Gillard of knowing what Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt planned to do with this fund.
BILLSON:
No no, you call it an accusation, my statement is that she refuses to answer fundamental, basic, crucial, central questions about the role she played in setting up this entity that provided the ways and means for hundreds of thousands of dollars to be defrauded against union members and those who contributed to it. If she wants to have any prospect of regaining credibility, a sense trustworthiness, the high ideals that a Prime Ministerial office should carry and model to the rest of the country, she needs to be straight with people, she's failed that test and she needs to answer these questions.
GILLON:
So really all you're adding to the accusations this morning is that the Prime Minister needs to explain herself further. You're not saying she broke the law, you're not saying she had no knowledge in setting up this fund...
BILLSON:Well we don't know. The original entity that she facilitated according to the reports of the interviews carried in the media today was rejected by the Western Australian authorities as looking like a union fund, it was rejected. The Prime Minister then intervened to argue the case that no, no, no, it was deserving of registration because it was not as it appeared to the registrar, it was something else. It wasn't anything to do with the union, but there was this effort to, in a very calculated way, make it look like it was something to do with the union but when challenged about that, in her role advising her clients which then her own law firm was wondering, who are these clients, our clients are someone else carrying that brand, the AWU, this is a very murky area and she's failed to be straight about it.
GILLON:
David Bradbury if there is a clear explanation why hasn't the Prime Minister gotten up in the Parliament and answered the questions the opposition put to her yesterday?
DAVID BRADBURY:
Okay, I've sat here biting my tongue for several minutes, I've let Bruce go on, waiting in the desperate hope that he might spell out a single allegation, a single allegation. Not one. But let me make this point, and if you want to have a look at the details of the transcript that were released today and the significance of them, what people need to look at is that it's very clear that the Prime Minister in her exit interview with Slater and Gordon said that she had absolutely no involvement with this entity once it had been incorporated. I want to focus on this point because this is what actually matters here. The suggestion that she is somehow connected with possible fraud that may have been committed subsequently and that she somehow must have known about that because she was involved in setting up the body is just absolute rubbish. Now let me explain to you the consequences of accepting that logic. What that means is that any lawyer in this country that has ever been involved in setting up a body that subsequently ended up being used for an illegitimate purpose or engaged in some form of misconduct or fraud, that you are going to go back and pin that on the lawyer. It's outrageous; there is absolutely nothing to this. That is what the exit interview and the details that were released today demonstrate, that the Prime Minister had absolutely nothing to do with this body after it was set up. So what is the allegation? What is the allegation? Let people make an allegation or otherwise this is more of the same old smear. Why have we got these smears? Because here we are at the end of the year of Parliament before we move into the final year of the Parliamentary term, the Opposition is smarting over the fact the Australian people are wanting them to talk about their policies. They don't have any but instead they'd rather hit us with smear, than to have a debate about our plans for the nation's future, education, NDIS.
GILLON:
So again, why is it okay for Bill Shorten to come in here and explain this, you to come here and explain this and these explanations are perfectly reasonable, why can't we hear it from the Prime Minister's lips, do you think today she will actually answer that question?
BRADBURY:
Well what does she need to explain? Let's go back and have a look for goodness sake, Tony Abbott...
GILLON:
Well yesterday she was asked repeatedly did she write the letter and she didn't answer that question...
BRADBURY:
Hang on, hang on, Tony Abbott...
BILLSON:
It was five times.
BRADBURY:
Tony Abbott set up a fund called 'Australians for honest politics', it was a fund that there has been much speculation about, if you want to start asking questions about why people have set up funds, don't talk to their lawyers, talk to the people that set the funds up. There are lots of questions that can be answered there as well. I would suggest that if people are that concerned about what lawyers were involved with in setting up entities then frankly, is this what the national debate has come to? When we've got massive reforms of the scale that we're confronting, the investment in education, the NDIS, and people are now arguing, like what is the public interest and substance behind this debate? What is it that people are alleging, what impact does that have on the lives of the Australian people and if they can't answer those questions it is nothing more than a smear.
GILLON:
Bruce isn't there quite a clear distinction as David says that from one point giving advice to your clients about how to set up a fund which is what the Prime Minister has acknowledged she did, to having knowledge of what they were going to do with it. Julia Gillard isn't a mind reader and no one is really suggesting she had any knowledge at the time that this was going to be used for dodgy purposes.
BILLSON:
Well David has just given you the case study about what Labor's trying to do here. Not answer your very straight forward direct question, why doesn't the Prime Minister provide direct answers in the Parliament but instead go on and have a crack at everybody else, go and attack everybody else, that's what people are tired of...
BRADBURY:
Well why don't you answer Ashleigh's question?
BILLSON:
Well I am David, thank you for the encouragement. So what we've heard before is the Prime Minister in a naive phase in her legal career...
BRADBURY:
No that's...
BILLSON:
Hang on, just calm down for a moment...
BRADBURY:
Don't put words into my mouth...
BILLSON:
No, no, I'm answering the question as you're encouraging me to do, so thanks for the encouragement...
GILLON:
Okay let's listen to Bruce and we'll come back to David before the end of the show.
BILLSON:
We've heard all along that it was a naive phase that she was doing this for her client that happened to be her boyfriend and the law firm is saying well hang on, who is your client? The client is the AWU, you're doing things for your client, but we have the client that's the AWU...
BRADBURY:
Who said that?
BILLSON:
So what's the authorisation with a lawyer that knows the rules of that organisation intricately and then is often said boasting about the detailed knowledge of it so that's issue number one...
BRADBURY:
So what's your allegation?
BILLSON:
Number two, then this fund gets created that's designed to look like, walk like and squawk like a union fund but apparently it's not and when the registrar coming to David's point says this looks dodgy, she intervenes to say it's not dodgy, it's not dodgy it's all legit, it's not a union fund even though it's designed to look like a fund...
GILLON:
So if the Prime Minister was sitting here right now Bruce, what question would you put to her that you really want an answer to?
BILLSON:
I'd say to her Prime Minister, why won't you answer the simple question of did you vouch for the bona-fides of this entity, why have you seemingly got forensic knowledge of detail of things then a redacted recall of things that go to the heart of her role in this case...
BRADBURY:
This is rubbish...
BILLSON:
How is it that we can have the confidence...
GILLON:
David Bradbury is the Prime Minister, do you believe she should answer this question today in the Parliament?
BRADBURY:
If the question is did she write to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission, acting on the instructions of her client, then it would seem from the transcript that a particular answer was given at the exit interview...
BILLSON:
So why not answer it when it was asked five times...
BRADBURY:
But regardless of what the answer to that question is, what's the point you're making?
BILLSON:
The point we're making, the point is very clear...
BRADBURY:
What is the allegation you're making?
BILLSON:
Is trustworthy conduct, the high ideals of the Prime Ministerial office...
BRADBURY:
That a lawyer wrote to a regulatory agency acting on the instructions of her client...
BILLSON:
A pattern of problems with union governance...
GILLON:
Alright Bruce and David we appreciate your time, we've gone around and around in circles a bit this morning, we appreciate you coming in to have this debate...
BRADBURY:
And this whole debate has gone round and round in circles...
BILLSON:
And what about the chronic dental scheme patients that aren't going to get any help, medicare chronic dental health schemes, paying for 14-19 months...
GILLON:
We're out of time, thank you joining us, great to see you in this final day of the Parliament, appreciate you joining us this morning.