Monday, September 03, 2012
Julia
Gillard’s beige-picket fence
In a nation supposedly obsessed with real estate,
last week’s crescendo of media coverage over PM Julia Gillard’s links with
corrupt union practises distinctly lacked in solid, irrefutable bricks and
mortar. Instead, what you might call the
mere chattels were being lobbed thick and fast.
It is no accident that the language of real
estate – e.g. the property “ladder” – is largely interchangeable with
career-speak. Both presume an only
upwards (or at worst, sideways) trajectory; no one ever seems to have the misfortune
of riding the property (or career) “snake” all the way down – not within the
discourses of the main game, anyway.
Careers and houses can also be broken down
into the same three, sometimes conflicting components, of which getting the mix
right is the best chance for success:
income earned (or rent saved, for owner-occupiers), capital
accumulation, and work-life balance/property liveability (jobs with oppressive
hours/conditions are akin to “renovator’s delights”). There is also arguably a fourth component, which
I’ll label “cosmetic improvements” (“if any”, as the usual real estate
disclaimer continues, while leaving out, of course, the “cosmetic”
prefix). In the career sphere, CVs are
notorious for “cosmetic improvements”; i.e. such “improvements” are presumed to
be a negative force, needing to be stamped out.
In real estate however, cosmetic improvements are eminently fair play in
general, and a well-trodden path to enhancing capital gain in particular.
Quite enough has been said about Julia Gillard’s
chattels (including apparently corrupt ex-partners), whether cosmetically or
otherwise. What I now propose is to focus
on Julia Gillard’s improvements; including, more specifically, whether they are
cosmetic or structural. I mean this in
the literal, real estate sense: I’ll
leave to my readers to extrapolate whether the PM’s early career can now be
regarded as cosmetically-, as opposed to structurally/legitimately
enhanced.
Before we can get to the actual bricks and
mortar however, we need to canvass the prerequisite loan application form. As we are talking about pre-low doc/sub-prime
loan times, career/income is an essential box-to-be-filled on this form. We know that from October 1987*, Julia
Gillard was a solicitor, and then from sometime in 1990, a partner at Melbourne law firm Slater and Gordon. In or in the months after
September 1995, she left Slater and Gordon (the date and circumstances of this
appear to be in dispute). In the March
1996 federal election, she ran unsuccessfully as a Labor Senate Candidate (if
Julia Gillard was still in the employ of Slater and Gordon up to this time, she
appears to have been “on leave” during the campaign). Sometime during 1996 (but after March), she became
Chief-of-Staff to the then Opposition Leader of the State of Victoria
In any event, the known real estate
adventures of Julia Gillard are more or less limited to the years 1991 to
(September) 1995, years during which her career/income, as a partner of Slater
and Gordon can be presumed to have been stable or upward. Hence let the bricks and mortar analysis
begin.
In May 1991*, Julia Gillard purchased 36 St Phillips St Melbourne 1/85 Kerr St
Even at $200,000, the most likely figure
Julia Gillard paid for 36 St
Phillips St
As I said near the outset, even the most
flagrantly cosmetic improvements in real estate are usually fiscally- (and
seemingly also for most people, although not in my case, ethically-) sound. In the present case of Julia Gillard and 36 St
Phillips St, we do not know her sale price (I’m assuming here that she sold
this property when she purchased her present residence in Altona), but we do
know the cost, and most other details, of the renovations she undertook there
between late 1992 and 1995. Hence,
whether these renovations were capital-gains successful for PM Gillard is necessarily
a moot point. However, renovations, at
least when not intended for short-term on-selling, also can be presumed to have
a “liveability” factor gain (as set-off against an “income” loss). Julia
Gillard’s renovations at 36 St
Phillips St
Media coverage of Julia Gillard’s botched
renovations has either replayed them as comedy or racism – the latter (if not also the former) because the ethnicity (Greek) of two of
the seven (at least) tradesmen PM Gillard had working for her was portrayed by
her, in her 1995 interview, both stereotypically and negatively. I’ve extracted the renovations parts of the 1995
interview transcript below (square brackets are my annotations). For me, contra to the hapless-Julia comedy
angle, and a necessary factor to be considered in the “racism” question, the
key issue is: whether, with her renovations, Julia Gillard was the architect of
her own misfortunes? As she expressly –
but oddly stumblingly (“No, I, I, I suppose . . .”)* – acknowledged in 1995, PM Gillard at no time
had a builder in charge of the overall renovations, never mind an architect.
The only logical answer to my “architect”
question therefore seems to be “yes”.
Again, I’ll leave it my readers to ponder the present-day implications
here. I will allow one caveat in my
answer, however: the timing and necessity of the 1970’s décor (but apparently
otherwise functional) bathroom, specifically, was dictated to Julia Gillard by
her then partner Bruce Wilson:
“Bruce whilst I was away [in Aug-Sep 1994] decided
that I should just get it done so he commenced with a group of friends
demolishing the bathroom.”*
Evidently, and perhaps not surprisingly,
Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson’s relationship broke up soon after this “Surprise!”
bathroom demolition (the 1995 interview does not give a more exact date, but
clearly the relationship was over sometime before the date of the interview).
Finally, back to the cosmetic vs structural
renovation issue. Although I’m no
builder/engineer/architect, it seems to me that Julia Gillard has pioneered a
new hybrid between cosmetic and structural renovation (“cosmuctural”,
perhaps?). A cursory look at the lie of St Phillips St
“[It] was because the way in which the glasswork and the paving were done at that
time was causing water to go into the foundations.”*
Paving’s permutations could certainly
exacerbate run-off into the foundations, but I am genuinely at a loss to
understand how window (I am assuming) glazing, however configured, could do so
also. Perhaps PM Gillard meant the
window frames and seals, as opposed to the glass itself. Either way, I can’t help but think that Julia
Gillard has gone for a “solution” here that is both expensive and slapdash, and
not particularly pretty to boot. An
external inspection (front street and rear lane) of 36 St Phillips St
This is a shame, in some ways, as these two
front-facade aluminium windows would quite possibly have possibly have been the
last of their kind to be installed anywhere in Melbourne’s inner-suburbia,
given that the “heritage” bandwagon was already well and truly rolling in 1994
– albeit not yet in Abbotsford, it appears***.
More than as a mere token relic of the thousands of Melbourne
inner-suburban terraces given Mediterranean façade makeovers between the 1950s and early
1990s, however, PM Gillard’s retaining, post-1994, of the front-facade aluminium
windows would have given 36 St Phillips St an architectural unity. You see, beyond the beige front façade and
beige picket-fence, no. 36 appears to be structurally unaltered since the 1970s
– its sides and back are peeling, ramshackle even.
* All references here are to “Slater and
Gordon transcript of a meeting between Peter Gordon, Geoff Shaw and Julia
Gillard on September 11, 1995”, published as “What Julia told her firm” Australian 22 August 2012; URL
paywalled, but edited extract below
** The housing stock of St Phillips St
*** No one has been accused, to date, of
breaking heritage rules in 1994. There
is an official heritage report on 36 St Phillips St available via Google
search, complete with a photo of a ramshackle-looking (but judging by the car
in the photo, last ten years or so) façade and front fence.
--
Slater and Gordon transcript of a meeting
between Peter Gordon [PG], Geoff Shaw and Julia Gillard [JG], at the time
respectively senior partner, general manager and partner at the firm, on
September 11, 1995.
[Extracted from an edited, apparently
leaked, transcript published as “What
Julia told her firm” Australian 22 August 2012; URL paywalled]
[snipped]
JG: Yep. I've, I moved there [to 36 St Phillips St
Then substantial renovations got done on
the property last year [1994], which included the kitchen being entirely redone
and the bathroom and laundry being entirely redone and internal plastering and
painting being done, and yes, so I got all that work done in September,
October, Novemberish last year.
PG: OK. Did you contract all of those works
to the one subcontractor or builder or did you manage them yourself?
JG: No, I, I, I suppose I should do it
piece by piece. I originally got glasswork and [external?] paving work done;
that was because the way in which the
glasswork and the paving were done at that time was causing water to go into
the foundations. I contracted with a glassworker/ woodworker person called
Athol James, who I found in the local newspaper, and contracted with a paving
place that I got from the local newspaper after getting, I got three quotes and
then picked the lowest one of them, so that got done first.
I then, I then got the floors done and I
got Athol back to do that, so the front of the house, the old part was the
original baltic pine floorboards. The back part was chipboard and I wanted to
get the floorboards matched with old baltic pine so I could get it all sanded
down and polished. I'm sure this detail is really exciting you. And Athol came
and did that, got old pine and matched it all up and you know all of that sort
of stuff, which was a substantial job. And then I got some bloke in I think
that he recommended to do the sanding, so that was what happened next.
Then what happened after that was I got the
kitchen done, I purchased Ikea cupboards and stuff, purchased the actual
appliances from a Radio Rentals place in Clifton Hill, and purchased a granite
bench top from a local place near me called the Marble Centre, that's also in
Abbotsford, and then I had installers who were recommended by Ikea put it all
in. His name was Taugney the Swedish Builder, and he took a substantial amount
of time to do all of that though I was the envy of Leonie, I recall at that
stage, for having a Swedish builder.
That left me with the kitchen functional
but the, the kitchen had like cork in it, all of that had basically been ripped
to shreds when they had taken the old cupboards out and put the new cupboards
in so it needed tiling, it needed tiling on the splashbacks, you know around
the sink and around the stove, it needed plastering work, kitchen ceiling, that
sort of thing, and I had had a long-held plan to fix the bathroom and laundry.
Both were a sort of 70s renovation which amongst other things was red and
yellow in colour and I therefore wanted to get it replaced.
I went away to, for a holiday, in late
August early September last year [1994] and I had been talking for a long time
about getting this bathroom and laundry work done.
And,
Bruce whilst I was away decided that I should just get it done so he commenced
with a group of friends demolishing the bathroom.
By the time I came back the bathroom had
been demolished so I had no option but to get the rest of the renovations done
and a series of tradespeople who Jim Collins predominantly organised, Jim
Collins being an organiser at the AWU, who he recommended through his local
football club, a series of tradespeople came in and did the renovation which
predominantly consisted of the bathroom, completing the kitchen, tiling on the
kitchen floor, plastering work, replacement of ceilings and the like.
PG: To the extent that in respect of the
bathroom it was required to purchase product tiles or grout or whatever, how
was that paid?
JG: I went and picked tiles both for the
bathroom and the kitchen from various tile shops and paid for them.
PG: Right.
JG: When they were delivered.
PG: Yep. In terms of the tradesmen who did
the work in those areas, who were they?
JG: I don't, I don't recall their names. I
have some of their receipts at home. There was a tiler, an electrician, a
plasterer who had with him a general roustabout person and a plumber and they
all knew each other and had worked together before, but it wasn't like one of
them was the builder who was organising everybody else. So they came in and did
it and I paid each of them. I've had occasion over the course of the weekend to
look through my personal records in relation to this matter and I do have a
series of receipts from various of them about bits of the work that was done.
PG: Right, and I take it the inquiry over
the weekend may have extended to this work as well, the Athol James work, the
glasswork, the paving, the floors and the sanding.
JG: Yes, I've got, I recall, I recall
particularly dealing with Athol because he came back more than once and sort of lived at my place for a substantial
period of time whilst he did the floors, I don't specifically recall
whether I've got a receipt from him, I think I do. I've certainly got his
number and stuff in my address book from having used him.
PG: OK. Julia, it would be helpful to us if
we could have copies of those.
JG: Yes.
PG: Do you have a problem with supplying
them to us?
JG: No, no problem at all.
PG: Good. So that, is it fair to say as a
general summary of that work that all of the work was paid for by you?
JG: I believe all of the work was paid for
by me. I was getting receipts, I was paying it. I at that stage borrowed an additional $20,000 from the bank to pay
for the renovations. I had occasion to ask Geoff if I could be pre-paid,
which he did. I don't recall the amount. But that was recouped out of my pay
for the first six months of this year. And, between that pre-payment and the
borrowing of the $20,000 from the bank, I paid for that work.
PG: Right.
JG: I should say that, when I say the
20,000 from the bank: that was the bathroom, the work that was organised
subsequent to the demolition of the bathroom. Athol James, the tiler, sorry
Athol James, the paver, Taugney the Swedish builder I had paid over time as
work was done.
[snipped]
This
year [ie. 1995] I had additional work done on my
place to try and do something about the outside, the outside is still not
painted the right colour, and needed, needed further work done on it. Bill the
Greek recommended to me a friend of his called Con, the last name I believe to
(be) Spiri, Spiridis or Spiritis or a word to that effect. Con organised for
me, or Con came and did the following things.
There are, there were two of the original
Victorian windows on either side of the house that were not functional and the
wood was rotting. I wanted them replaced by new windows. Contrary to the
directions I gave him about that he replaced them with aluminium sliding
windows which I was particularly unhappy about. The veranda was slate and it
was coming up and the posts which held up the veranda in part were rotting so I
contracted with him to replace the posts and to tile the veranda. He did tile
the verandah after a fashion, but the job is uncompleted. He did put in posts
but he put in, ah, what's the word, decorative posts chiselled out with
patterns, rather than plain posts. Given it's a Victorian weatherboard house I
was pretty unhappy about that as well. And he mortared the fence and put
pickets in it which was required to complete the fence.
When I came home and saw the posts and the
windows which got done in, done in one day I raised it immediately with Bill
the Greek in fairly vociferous tones and said this has just totally buggered up
this job. This is just hideous, you know, you need to talk to Con about it.
Bill had been the link to Con. Bill said he would speak to Con about it. Con
came back subsequently and did the fence and I raised it with Con. Con said he would get, he knew he had made
an error with the windows. He would get the windows replaced with wood windows.
He didn't think the posts were his fault because that was the sort of posts
that were described to him so there was an ongoing debate about whose fault it
was that the posts were the wrong posts. He basically half finished, did most
of the fence though bits of it are uncompleted and then he didn't return. I
periodically raised with Bill what on earth is happening with Con and these
windows and these posts and the tiling's uncompleted and the fence is
uncompleted. Bill would say I'll fix it, I'll fix it but it never got fixed.
Life
got a little bit more crazy than it had been and I ceased to sort of pay much
regard to it or think about it but there was this uncompleted work at the
property or to the extent it was completed large bits of it were done wrong. I don't know what transactions Con and Bill have had about the
account for that work, but I believe what has happened is Con has gone to the
AWU looking for Bill or looking for payment for the account.
[snipped]
PG: OK. Is there anything else that you
think we need to know about?
JG: No, I think that's it, I can't think of
anything else.
PG: OK. Thanks. The interview was continued
because we needed to talk about . . .
JG: Sorry, I'm getting confused, the, Geoff
when we were not on tape asked me a series of questions about things that I
have had done to the house that I don't recall getting invoiced for. It
occurred to me that one of those things is, and Geoff has actually seen this
with his own eyes. Bill the Greek, whilst I was at work one day, built for me a
low level brick fence. I didn't ask him to do that. The result was truly
hideous and I think Geoff saw it when he dropped me off one night and everybody
else who's passed my house has commented on it. In order to try and make it
look less hideous, part of the work that
Con was to do was to mortar it and put pickets on it that goes like that to try
and stop it looking quite as Greek, dare one say.
I didn't, I've never, I didn't pay for the
bricks, I didn't pay for the bricks. I've never had an account in relation to
the fence. Now, I don't, I don't know what that means about where Bill got the
bricks from, and I don't know whether that means anybody worked with him on the
fence, that I haven't paid. He, you know, he pleased as punch sort of said he
had built it for me. That he had built it for me. Whether that means he himself
did it, given Bill's obvious difficulties with the truth I no longer know.
PG: What are Bill's obvious difficulties
with the truth?
JG: He's just a big Greek bullshit artist.
[snipped to end]
[snipped to end]
 |
| Front facade of 36 St Phillips St, Abbotsford
|
 |
| East facade (view over back fence) of 36 St Phillips St, Abbotsford
|
 |
| South facade of 36 St Phillips St, Abbotsford |
Update
23 November 2012
The plot thickens, as (mostly) minor
document after minor document is drip-fed onto the broadsheets’ front pages. If Little Red Riding Hood (22/11 corrected from "Goldilocks") had been a lawyer (or
ex-lawyer), she would have had no trouble with her trail of breadcrumbs disappearing
when they were most needed. A lawyer’s
every billing moment leaves at least a footprint in the forest. But in Julia Gillard’s case, piecing together
these footprints into a coherent trail remains a work in progress.
In the mean time, the two most major recent
developments* have received scant follow-up.
The first is that the money defrauded by Wilson and Blewitt largely came
from big-end-of-town corporate pockets – i.e. “donations” presumably used to
buy industrial peace. The second is that
“big Greek bullshit artist” Bill Telikostoglou was not just an over-promising
tradie working on Ms Gillard’s home reno, but a senior AWU figure, at least one senior
enough to receive a “large” redundancy cheque of $16,218, in August 1995,
apparently to smooth Telikostoglou’s exit from his (oddly unspecified) AWU role. Admittedly, in dollar terms here, we are not talking sheep
stations – just cosmetic, structurally-pointless cheque-writing for dumps in
the back streets of Abbotsford (and yes, that’s a metaphor as well).
Julia Gillard’s position at the moment reminds
me of a certain ex-US
* These two developments are covered in Hedley Thomas, “Rushed cheques and a quiet exit: how the
AWU 'covered up' fraud”, Australian, 16 November 2012
Comments:
<< Home
At this tіme іt аppears like BlogEngine is the prefeггed blogging ρlаtfοrm οut there
right now. (fгоm what I've read) Is that what you are using on your blog?
Also visit my weblog: best loans for bad credit
Post a Comment
right now. (fгоm what I've read) Is that what you are using on your blog?
Also visit my weblog: best loans for bad credit
# posted by 
: 9:14 AM
: 9:14 AM<< Home
