
Lurking online is a neat demonstration of the profound misogyny of Australian politics, and the rank double standards of both the Coalition and much of the press gallery in Canberra.
A Sydney Morning Herald article from 2014 is accompanied by a screen grab from the proceedings of the trade union royal commission. There’s commissioner Dyson Heydon and former prime minister Julia Gillard, the latter being interrogated by counsel assisting.

Heydon was later found by a High Court investigation to have sexually harassed six associates, prompting Chief Justice Susan Kiefel to remark “we’re ashamed that this could have happened at the High Court of Australia”.
The trade union royal commission, which cost $46 million, led to a small number of convictions and civil penalties, most recently that of Kathy Jackson, originally lauded by News Corp and the Coalition as a “brave decent woman” (Tony Abbott) and a “lion of the labour movement” (Christopher Pyne). A number of prosecutions of union officials that followed the royal commission later collapsed.
Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial and get Crikey straight to your inbox
The trade union royal commission was intended to destroy Bill Shorten and wreck Julia Gillard’s reputation, as well as being a vehicle for the Coalition’s drive to weaken unions as much as possible. Now it’s fallen down a memory hole, along with the campaign of vilification against Julia Gillard when she was PM.
However, watching Julie Bishop last night win plaudits for agreeing there was a toxic culture in Parliament House, sexism in the Liberal Party, and that a coronial inquest into the death of the complainant against Christian Porter was needed, was to be reminded of her centre stage role in the smear campaign against Gillard… at least until Bishop stuffed it up so badly she was dropped from the political prosecution.
Perhaps Bishop, having had her own public experience of misogyny within the Liberal Party, has had a change of heart about attacks on Gillard, but in December 2012, Bishop thought a judicial inquiry was necessary to determine what role a younger Gillard had played in the AWU affair, centring on the embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars of union and corporate funds.
That was despite the saga having already been investigated by police in two states, with no action taken, and an internal Slater and Gordon inquiry that cleared Gillard. Victorian police fired up another investigation after bagman Ralph Blewitt re-emerged in 2012 promising new information, but that never led anywhere either.
Bishop wasn’t alone with the judicial inquiry line. Her leader Tony Abbott demanded one as well. There was no protestations about the “rule of law” despite police investigations having been closed. The then-shadow attorney-general George Brandis didn’t even need an inquiry, and used parliamentary privilege to call Gillard a “crook”.
All despite the failure of both the opposition and the media to identify a specific allegation of wrongdoing. Notoriously, Abbott claimed Gillard had “questions to answer” about the matter but when asked by Leigh Sales to specify what the questions were, couldn’t say.
Still, a judicial inquiry was apparently warranted even though police investigations were concluded and there was no specific allegation. All over a few hundred thousand in union graft.
If the double standard of the Coalition, which now insists the uninvestigated, and very specific, allegations against Christian Porter do not need an inquiry, is impressive, that of much of the media is equally staggering.
Journalists have apparently purged themselves of the memory of how hysterical the campaign against Gillard was — the incessant headlines, the acres of newsprint, the stories The Australian got wrong and had to retract, Gillard standing for hour-long press conferences dealing with questions until journalists gave up, exhausted. It wasn’t just News Corp — Fairfax and the ABC joined in, though like the Murdoch press none could actually put together a specific allegation of wrongdoing.
Now, of course, many in the media — many of the same journalists and commentators who hounded Gillard — lament the “trial by media” of Porter.
And if the press gallery was feral, online media was toxic. Failed journalists used blogs to push elaborate conspiracy theories and insist Gillard would be jailed. The vile fraudster and bigot Larry Pickering published disgusting cartoons of Gillard, including ones depicting her as a rapist. All to precisely zero outrage from the right. No complaints about the “sewer”.
They all got their inquiry, of course, after Tony Abbott became PM. But despite its best efforts, Dyson was subsequently also to clear Gillard. Gillard has never received an apology from anyone about it. It’s all gone down the memory hole.
Few journalists apparently remember any of this (Raf Epstein is one) — an extended campaign of smear, trial by media and unsubstantiated allegations run for weeks on end by the opposition and the media.
What happened to Gillard is now inconvenient when complaining about the treatment of Christian Porter and how it breaches the rule of law.
But one look at that photo of Gillard and Heydon tells you all you need to know about the double standards here.
Was there a double standard at play? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say section.
Leave a comment
Move on, nothing to see here.
Oh really, Griselda? or are you being facetious?
I’m guessing she forgot to put it in SARCASM font.
^Move on, nothing to see here^ – there, fixed it, now it reads as sarcasm … well, to me it does
Thanks roberto. I didn’t know about the ^sarcasm^ punctuation. I shall use it often.
You are right. I was being a little tongue in cheek.
The whole thing about the rule of law is what you have to work out is, whose rule and whose law?
Herodotus recounts a tale about how Cambyses conceived a passion for his sister and decided to marry her. Mindful of the importance of the rule of law, he sent a missive to his chief judges asking if there was any legal problems with his plan. This put them in a difficult position. Thwarting the King’s desires could cost them their skins (literally), but agreeing to his plan would break their oaths to uphold the law (which could also have a serious downside). Their judgement was a masterpiece of its type. The law clearly forbids a man from marrying his sister, they wrote, but there is almost certainly a law, they continued, that says the king can do as he pleases.
This flexible attitude to the rule of law has proved enduring and can be seen today in the current government’s approach to things like the presumption of innocence for cabinet ministers but not for people on social welfare, or the right to privacy for cabinet minsters but not for people on social welfare. There are plenty of examples to choose from.
(*Erasmus, yes I know Herodotus Histories are not regarded by contemporary experts as being the last word in historical accuracy).
I have a soft spot for Thucydides and Herodotus. In many respects they were quite “modern”.
Well, the “Thucydides trap” certainly continues to enmesh many people.
If tribalism can be equated to paranoia it is being played out here.
I suppose we should all “look on the bright side of life” and be thankful for the Cky staff not mentioning Megan or Harry or Orph or, for that matter, the percentage of melanin!
For the kiddies too lazy to google, I was referring to the brain numbing fear of a currently dominant player about threats from hungry oncomers.
Lots of it about – privilege, age, class, even the blah/blah classes spruiked from daze of yore by grundle.
Speaking of whom, where is our verbal pyromaniac? I’m sure his take on the madness du jour would be priceless.
Probably why he is nowhere to be seen.
Keeping the powder dry I would think.
There is to be a quasi BLM pantomime by the selfie-seeking who, I doubt, could offer 25 coherent words on due process or the presumption of innocence.
By all means investigate the OH&S of parliament and local Member offices and send for the Bow Street Runners regarding the heavy stuff (there being sufficient smoke) but let’s have the venting AFTER the procedures. After the investigations, assembled, including the WA Law Society will know what they are there for (at least for some).
You were right. Today’s garde l’eau is no more than microwaved yesterday! Waste of 20c at a dollar per week.
Griselda,
Of course the rule that applies here is the Midas or Golden Rule – they who have the gold make the rules!
Don’t forget what happened to Midas after his Manus Auric curse was lifted – Apollo didn’t rate his musical judgement.
I recently got a please explain from twitter when banging on about me not being worried about the vaccine, but just the micro chips in it.
Sarcasm is lost when there really is a lot of dickheads about.
Please don’t forget that it’s the “dickheads” that keep the economy going, – and therefore democracy as well!
… piece of cake ?..
If not facetious, totally blind & deaf.
Did you just come for the freebie cream bun scone lamingtons & a good lie down bex n cuppa’ ?
Gillard’s arguments, as solicitor, at the meeting in Kalgoorlie, (shifting funds) were as spurious as hell. She also received riding instructions to spill Rudd. She is no shrinking violet and is as good a toe cutter as Keeting or Abbott.
Since Walpole (1st PM) politics has been a dirty game and double standards abound. Agni is correct (from yesterday): this topic is here for another week at least! Become accustomed to the re-heating.
Obviously women with ambition and dirty political tactics are not to be tolerated as ambitious men with dirty political tactics.
Pretty close to a spurious comment. What is the relevance of this straw man? Is anyone denying she’s a Rudd-spiller, or a toe cutter; or claiming she’s a shrinking violet? Do try to stick to the topic for once.
Anyone wishing to reacquaint themselves with the abject, vicious treatment of Julia Gillard, should read The Stalking of Julia Gillard by Kerry-Anne Walsh; it’ll bring it all back most pungently. Whatever her faults and failings, she didn’t deserve the vileness heaped on her, not least in the execrable ABC ‘comedy send-up’ (so-called ‘satire’) series At Home with Julia. No other prime minister or politician has been subjected to such disrespectful treatment; no doubt if Abbott, Smirko or any of their cronies both male and female had been mocked to the same degree we’d have had teary, Porter-like performances from them, solicitous outraged denunciations by News Corp, threats to sue for defamation, and calls for the closure of the ABC.
Some identifiable value judgements embedded in that reply! Just what degree of criticism is deserved for the disingenuous if not the mendacious? Try to be specific.
And your take on the disgusting signs, etc that were commonplace when Gillard was PM? Nasty stuff that no man has ever had to deal with when in the top job.
Gillard didn’t require a tutorial
That I can agree with. She was fully briefed.
“Gillard’s arguments, as solicitor, at the meeting in Kalgoorlie, (shifting funds) were as spurious as hell.”
And that’s why nothing came of the enquiry.
Keeting?
Edmund Barton was our first PM.
And we’re jumping up and down over Porter assuming he is to be whitewashed too
Does the issue of Australian passport and a Middle Eastern country come to mind? Roughly, how many times did the story change? Should Bishop have become PM then Hanson would have a chance.
Intended for Lupeza
The one thing that the Sydney shockjock/Murdoch misinformation media have nailed is hypocrisy.
It’s their bread n butter.
David,you have nailed It!!
If you have a chance listen to Kevin at the press club,today!!
Kevin27? Lol.
The breathtaking hypocrisy of this Morrison Government and his PR arm, News Ltd, is hardly newsworthy.
But I do wonder how long they really think they can continue to hold this “rule of law” rubbish line with Porter. Surely not for long?
It’s easy to imagine that because the idea that the rule of law will be destroyed overnight by any examination of the allegations is ludicrous, makes no sense and is easily disproven, it must soon be widely discredited. I don’t think so. For a start, there are the partisans who will defend their party bt sticking with it, not caring at all whether it is true so long as it is useful. Then there are others who will decide that because they cannot understand why it threatens the rule of law they must leave it those who know better, such as Porter. Finally so long as it repeated often enough it will be believed. Once again H L Mencken’s insight will be vindicated
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
Liberals are the “born to rule” and should not be queried.
How about outing some of those “journalists” you speak of. It was a disgusting time and look where we have ended up.
Agree – name them so we can identify the hypocrites and toadies.
Well, anyone who works for Newscorpse (and probably Nine Fairfax and Seven West). It will be a long list.
Especially the ones now writing here, having been extruded from Moloch’s cloaca.
The Coalition know all about the power of a smear campaign, such an important tool in the Murdochian kingmaking scheme.
No should should ever forget the smiling Abbot standing on that platform with “ditch the witch” made for the 2 second news grab placard behind him.
The was the pinnacle of rotten media/ neocon behaviour.