Labor turns the tables on Bishop

THE government has gone on the front foot against what it describes as the "smearing" of Julia Gillard, with a counter-smear against Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop.

By InvestSMART · 19 Nov 2012

By InvestSMART ·
19 Nov 2012

Comments

THE government has gone on the front foot against what it describes as the "smearing" of Julia Gillard, with a counter-smear against Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop.

It questions the behaviour of Ms Bishop - who has recently carried the opposition attack over Ms Gillard's involvement in the AWU affair - from when she was a solicitor acting for CSR in asbestos cases.

Cabinet minister Brendan O'Connor said on Sunday that people were sick of the smearing that was going on, in which Tony Abbott was using Ms Bishop as his "proxy". "Julie Bishop ... has her own questions to answer."

He said there were matters arising out of her role as lawyer for CSR "where she used allegedly procedural tactics to deny victims of asbestosis their day in court".

Ms Bishop said she was happy to answer any questions about any aspects of her ethical and professional behaviour during her 20-year legal career. This was "unlike Julia Gillard, who is not prepared to answer questions about her professional conduct".

The latest allegations relate to two test cases in the early 1990s involving CSR as the parent company of Australian Blue Asbestos and the West Australian State Government Insurance Office. The cases were to test if CSR had liability - after a judge found that it did, many workers' claims were paid.

Mr O'Connor told the ABC Ms Bishop was seeking "to smear the government and the Prime Minister with unsubstantiated allegations and I think there's some questions that she should be answering as well".

Ms Bishop denied any allegations of delay. She said that at all times she had acted on the instructions of clients and the advice of barristers.

Go to Google News, then click "Follow" button to add us.

Share this article and show your support

Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…

What is the controversy involving Julie Bishop and CSR asbestos cases?

The article reports allegations that Julie Bishop, who worked as a solicitor for CSR in asbestos cases, faced questions about her conduct. Cabinet minister Brendan O'Connor accused her of using procedural tactics while representing CSR that allegedly delayed victims of asbestosis getting their day in court. Bishop has denied any delay and said she acted on clients' instructions and the advice of barristers, and that she is willing to answer questions about her professional conduct.

What were the early 1990s CSR asbestos test cases mentioned in the article?

The article describes two test cases in the early 1990s involving CSR as the parent of Australian Blue Asbestos and the West Australian State Government Insurance Office. Those cases were intended to test whether CSR had liability; after a judge found liability, many workers' claims were subsequently paid.

How might CSR's historical asbestos litigation be relevant to everyday investors?

The article highlights CSR's role in asbestos test cases and resulting liability rulings. For everyday investors, that kind of legal history is relevant because litigation and reputational issues can prompt public scrutiny and may influence how stakeholders view a company. The article does not provide current financial outcomes, so investors should monitor official updates and legal disclosures for concrete impacts.

What did Brendan O'Connor say about the political attacks and Julie Bishop?

Brendan O'Connor said people were tired of the 'smearing' directed at Prime Minister Julia Gillard and that Tony Abbott had been using Julie Bishop as a 'proxy' in those attacks. He said Bishop 'has her own questions to answer' about her role as a lawyer for CSR and the tactics allegedly used in asbestos cases.

How did Julie Bishop respond to allegations about her legal conduct for CSR?

Julie Bishop denied any allegations of delay and said she is happy to answer questions about her ethical and professional behaviour during her 20-year legal career. She stated that she acted at all times on the instructions of clients and on the advice of barristers.

What is the AWU affair mentioned in the article and how does it relate to the dispute?

The AWU affair is referenced as the subject of opposition attacks led by Julie Bishop against Julia Gillard. The article notes Bishop had carried the opposition's scrutiny over Gillard's involvement in the AWU affair, which formed part of the broader political dispute prompting the government's counter-attack.

Could political disputes like these increase scrutiny on companies named in the article?

Yes. The article illustrates how political arguments and counter-allegations can bring renewed attention to companies tied to past controversies—CSR, in this case. That heightened public and media scrutiny can lead investors to re-examine legal histories and public disclosures, although the article does not link these disputes to any specific market moves.

What should everyday investors watch for after these allegations about legal and political scrutiny?

Based on the article, investors should watch for official responses and further details: statements from Julie Bishop, any new information about the CSR asbestos cases or related legal records, and credible reporting on outcomes. The article suggests following primary sources and official disclosures rather than speculation.