Julie Bishop

I have always said that to be a member of the Liberal party, it must be a pre-requisite for one to take nasty, vicious pills.

If so, Julie Bishop has obviously overdosed.

I have also said that Ms Bishop the younger, is the most nasty, vicious woman in Parliament. Her spiteful cat calling across the Chamber during Question Time is legendary and extremely unbecoming of a fellow woman Parliamentarian.

I thought Ms Mirabella was bad enough but Ms Bishop trumps even her.

Now we have Ms Bishop’s recent interview in the Tasmanian newspaper, The Examiner, as absolute proof that her spitefulness and jealousy has now reached a new low.

Kicking someone when they’re down.


Taking a page out Abbott’s book maybe.


Ms Bishop, in her interview with the Gazette, has sought to blame the victim of Abbott’s vile, aggressive, bullying, seditious attacks during the three years of the hung parliament.


Quote:  “She had the most powerful position in the country. She was the most powerful elected representative in Australia and yet she chose to play a victim instead of face up to her own incompetence and misjudgments and miscalculations.”

Oh Ms Bishop – how very wrong you are – and how dare you try to turn yours and Tony Abbott’s constant vile, vicious verbal and visual attacks on Ms Gillard as her fault.

You, Ms Bishop are no shining light yourself.

Let me remind people of the sort of woman you are.


In the 1980s, working under her married name Julie Gillon, Bishop was deeply involved in some of Slater & Gordon’s biggest asbestos cases.

Lawyer Peter Gordon told Australian Doctor magazine in 2007: “We had to fight even for the right of dying cancer victims to get a speedy trial. I recall sitting in the WA Supreme Court in an interlocutory hearing for the test cases involving Wittenoom miners Mr. Peter Heys and Mr. Tim Barrow. CSR was represented by Ms. Julie Bishop (then Julie Gillon). (She) was rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying.”



You, Ms Bishop, sort to deny workers dying of workplace asbestos disease, a quick resolution to their court case. What a low act.

Ms Bishop has also sat back, smirked or glared with her infamous death stare, without once offering a comment of disgust at her Liberal Party colleagues appalling sexist attacks on Ms Gillard, nor or a sisterhood word of support.

Bill Heffernan’s “deliberately barren” comment of Ms Gillard “won” the 2007 most sexist comment award. Something LNP MP’s are no doubt very proud of.


(Ms Bishop herself has no children, lives with her partner, Peter Nattrass, himself a notorious former Mayor of Perth.)

David Farley, CEO Australia Agriculture Company and LNP supporter, referred to Ms Gillard as “an unproductive old cow”


Abbott himself, with his deliberate sly comment re the Labor Government reducing the baby bonus “I think if the Government was a bit more experienced in this area, they wouldn’t come out with glib lines like that.”


Grahame Morris, former Chief Adviser to John Howard said, “Prime Minster Julia Gillard should be kicked to death”


Steve Ciobo, LNP Gold Coast MP for Moncrieff, said of Gillard “Labor MP’s want to “slit her throat”.


Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Bronwyn Bishop, Indigenous WA MP Ken Wyatt, the young and impressionable National Party MP Wyatt Roy and other LNP MP’s also proudly stood in front of “Ditch the Witch” and “Bob Brown’s bitch “ signs.


Where was Ms Bishop after these loathsome comments and photos were made public? Was she out there describing this vile, sexist behaviour as totally unacceptable?



Her silence only indicated her complicity in agreeing with these ugly, gutter, sexist tactics.

This is a woman whose loyalty gene has been stretched beyond belief – almost like an old pair of undies of which the elastic has well and truly gone and they are now falling down around her ankles. Firstly, runner up to Brendan Nelson. Then Malcolm Turnbull. Now Tony Abbott.  Every time the LNP has stabbed another leader in the back, there was Nurse Bishop pulling out the knife, patching up the wound of the man she had just declared her undying loyalty to – at the same time giving a wink and a nudge and declaring her new found love and loyalty to the next conservative white male in a blue tie.

Ms Bishop can switch her dysfunctional, erratic loyalty on and off like a light switch.

But, regardless, she will always be the LNP bridesmaid.

For as much as she would have dearly loved it, Julie Bishop will NEVER, EVER be Australia’s FIRST female Prime Minister. Nor, will she ever be the second or the third female Prime Minister.

She is also hardly likely to even be Australia’s first female ACTING Prime Minister because under the dodgy Coalition minority Government arrangements, that mantle goes to the Leader of National Party (and God forbid if Barnaby Joyce wins New England he could well be Acting PM whilst Abbott flits off overseas for all those meetings he once said Labor PM’s should never take.)

Julia Gillard also delivered for the Australian people two of the most progressive reforms in our political history – Better Schools reform, Disability Care reform… things that you Ms Bishop, would probably never even have thought of let alone deliver.

So, Ms Bishop, you are in no position to critisise Julia Gillard.

Because Julia Gillard will always have the title that you so desperately craved and are now so insanely jealous of.

Australia’s FIRST female Prime Minister.

Give that one the death stare Ms Bishop. Still wont change anything. You will still and always be – the second hand, constantly recycled bridesmaid of the LNP.

…and by the way Ms Bishop (to borrow from USA Democrat Senator LLoyd Bentson 1988)

“You are no Julia Gillard.”



Whose conscience is it anyway?

When it comes to a conscience vote in today’s Parliament it is taken as a given and never questioned that the individual MP will vote according to HIS/HER own personal conscience…that is…his/her own personal opinion on the issue. But with 85% of the population supporting voluntary euthanasia and approximately 62% supporting gay marriage…it must therefore indicate then that a large percentage of an MP’s electorate supports both.

Politicians are forever saying voluntary euthanasia and gay marriage are contentious issues. With whom? Church leaders and some of their followers? In the case of voluntary euthanasia …church leaders and certain sections of the medical profession? It certainly isn’t amongst the ordinary every day person if a large majority of the population of Australia support both.

Therefore, why is it that in a conscience vote, the MP is voting according to his/her own personal conscience (opinion) based on whatever reason they deem to suit their personal vote when in fact he/she is elected to represent the conscience (opinion) of the majority of his/her electorate?

After all, it is about the 30-50000 people whom the MP represents…it is not and should not be about the opinion of one person. The way a conscience vote functions today (and has always done so) denies the people of an electorate the right to express and then vote for their collective conscience.

I believe therefore, it is imperative that each MP, when anticipating voting according to a “conscience vote”, poll his/her electorate and then subsequently vote according to the majority of the wishes of his constituency. The MP’s vote itself would be included in the poll.

For example…Malcolm Turnbull has polled his electorate to substantiate their collective majority opinion gay marriage.  It came out overwhelming in favour. (Turnbull himself has always supported a conscience vote on gay marriage.)

It is either this way or hold a State plebiscite or a National referendum….and truly give the people their own personal vote on the issue.

By MP’s of all political persuasions not polling their electorates to establish majority support and also a leader denying his MP’s a conscience vote on gay marriage or voluntary euthanasia is in effect denying each and every eligible voter the right to express their opinion on the issue.

If I support voluntary euthanasia and gay marriage…and the majority of the electorate support voluntary euthanasia and/or gay marriage then it is not up to the MP to vote against the majority wishes according to his/her personal opinion. The same applies if the majority vote is in the negative.

There is power in the people and it is up the people to tell their MP’s that the majority’s wants and needs of his/her electorate is what they should be voting for/against when an issue goes to a conscience vote.