It has been a tumultuous week in Federal parliament. The Opposition has prosecuted a case against the PM she may have committed criminal acts.
The media coverage has been just as extraordinary with a polarisation of views; one end of this continuum says that the PM has no case to answer and that the Opposition's case is like the emperor without any clothes. Some think, like Lenore Taylor, the PM is winning public opinion while others such as Jenny Hocking say it is the Opposition leader who has the case to answer not the PM.
In the exit interview the PM said: "it's common practice, indeed every union has what it refers to as a re-election fund, slush-fund...it was better to have an incorporated association, a legal entity, into which people could participate as members, that was the holder of the account."
At that press conference the PM rejected the term "slush fund" because she said it was "terminology with a particular overtone". The PM preferred the description "that the purpose of the association was to support the re-election of a team of union officials and their pursuit of the policies that they would stand for re-election on."
This distinction is however unimportant; what is important is that the PM has admitted that she knew the application for association she drafted was based on a purpose which was different from the ostensible real purpose.