If we are going to prosecute/persecute a politician for having a possibly criminal past, there will not be many MPs left in the parliament.
Lets face it they are politicians and they only get there by being shonky with the exception of Bob Brown and Christine Milne. I think that Andrew Wilkie could also be considered to have integrity.
Integrity a strange word to apply to a pollie.

With the recent report by the world bank on the rapid advance of AGW and also findings that the melt rate in the Arctic and Antarctic has tripled in speed, this nonsense being played out in the Parliament is a storm in a tea cup and should be treated as such.
If this is all that our leaders can do at a time of crisis, then it is time that we replaced them with proper leaders.
Grow up. Abbott, I know that you crave to be PM and will do anything towards that end but you are not fit to lead a country,
Gillard, ignore the pathetic attacks on you and get on with running the country.

What a terrible situation Australia is in!

We have a P.M. and a would-be P.M. that are both dodgy and unloved but for different reasons. The people prefer Rudd and Turnbull as their leaders but the politicians have decided that we, the voters, are going to have Gillard and Abbot and who are we to question this?

Well, we are the voters and, in a democracy, we are supposed to have a government 'by the people, for the people' or some such nonsense!

Why don't the two parties call a leadership ballot this week and get rid of Gillard and Abbott, give us a great Xmas present, show that they respect us, that they care about what we think...!

Sorry, I let my imagination get the better of me. Back to the drawing board.

I think you failed to finish your last sentence Mr LePage. I believe it should have read -

"Gillard, ignore the pathetic attacks on you and get on with running the country" into the ground.

Yes, now that's more like it.

However, a very good case you've established here Mr Cox. I will be interested to see what the defense puts up. So far it's just been waffle. Probably more of the same, apart from the usual vitriol, trolling, and incoherent heckle and jeckle.

What strange comments by Robert; if politicians have questions to answer about their integrity generally how can you expect them to deal with specific issues in an ethical manner.

3 questions for Robert:

1 Address the specific points in the article about the PM; handwaving about "pathetic attacks" doesn't cut the mustard.

2 Who are the other politicians with "possible criminal pasts"; apart from Thomson and Slipper who are currently being investigated?

3 The World Bank report on alleged progress of AGW is OT but since you raised it the report is a fiasco and is revealed to be such by this analysis:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/28/the-atlantic-magazines-5-charts-about-climate-change-that-should-have-you-very-very-worried-worried-about-scientific-illiteracy/#more-74972

Like every bit of 'evidence' about AGW the WB report is nothing more than exaggerations and lies.

For some reason, commentators on the AWU Workplace Reform Association never seem to mention "passing off". Google gave me:

"Q: What is passing off? The tort of passing off applies where there is a representation that a person’s goods or services are those of someone else. To establish passing off, the plaintiff must prove a misrepresentation made by a trader in the course of trade to prospective customers or consumers that is intended to injure the plaintiff's business or goodwill and that caused actual damage to the plaintiff. The misrepresentation can be about the name of the product or the image that is presented by the product. The tort of passing off is not confined to the traditional concepts of trade names and trademarks. It includes such things as slogans and visual images where they have become part of the goodwill or reputation of the product.

The Trade Practices Act creates a statutory tort that can be used in addition to, or in substitution for, the common law tort of passing off. The Act prohibits deceptive or misleading conduct by a corporation. It is only necessary to prove that the conduct occurred in the course of trade and commerce, and that it is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive."

http://www.findlaw.com.au/faqs/1126/what-is-passing-off.aspx

Take it from cohenite, that his link to "analysis" from his favourite weatherman blog (amateur climate science in action, folks!) has far more veracity than any report by the World Bank.

A veritable "fiasco"....,"exaggeration and lies"!

cohenite has spoken.

Herbert, Passing Off, is indeed relevant to the AWU association set up by the PM; other possible 'offences' include contravention of the AWU's own rules such as Rule 51:

http://www.fwa.gov.au/documents/organisations/current_rulebooks/002n.pdf

There is also the issue of contravention of Section 43 of the Associations Incorporation Act.

The problem with these other possible 'offences' is that they may be constrained by Statute of Limitations; A Section 170 offence is not.

If the Coalition go into next years's election sticking with Abbott and his team, they will deserve the hiding they are likely to get. Even after having been clearly shown to be as dodgy as (Tu quoque - A retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior - is this really as good as our PM can do?), Gillard seems to still have Abbott's number, is anyone not weary of Bishop's Darth Vadar stare, and how credible is Hockey as Treasurer?
If, on the other hand, they reinstate Turnbull as leader and give him a credible team, the whole country would breathe a sigh of relief. It's a slam dunk if they want it.

A Case to answer?
Says who?
The same people who want her job!
And indeed, it would seem, say anything, promise anything, go to any lengths, to force the PM to an early election, preferably before the polls worsen, for a now line ball opposition.
Her own handwriting?
Where's the evidence or conformation of actual wrong doing.
A letter possibly penned 20 years ago, on behalf of a fee paying client proves nothing save, she was a very capable solicitor; and or, just doing the job her client was paying her for, to the best of her ability!
Moreover,I know a former bank manager, who, in his own words; and only to expedite positive financial outcomes for his clientele, was quite capable of producing credible copies of the handwriting, of his banks richer clientele?
Assert all you will.
Assertions and or assumptions and louder and louder shouting, prove nothing, other than increasing desperation!?
As the PM replied to this increasingly odious and now decidedly counter productive, mud slinging campaign, put up or shut up!
Or better yet, repeat the barely veiled allegations of criminal behaviour, outside the coward's castle of Parliament, or the anonymous protection, of online opinion; and or, a bogus name!?
Rhrosty

Rhrosty says:

"A Case to answer?
Says who?
The same people who want her job!"

I don't want her job; I want her job done by an honest person with the interests of Australia at heart; anyone who thinks Gillard has the interests of Australia at heart is in a coma.

I am not a politician nor a legal person , however, my common sense tells me IF our PM had done anything wrong, surely she would have been charged under our laws? I have faith in our laws. And didn't Mr. Abbott say it was worse to lie to the ACIA (?) than the Sydney Morning Herald?

Can anyone refresh my memory on John Howard's actions when Ms.Hanson was a pain in his side?? And, when his brother was granted a bail-out to save his company??

Let he (or she) who is without sin, cast the first stone. Our PM has done nothing (legally) wrong, let her do her job and run the country (NO, not into the ground!)

IF this is a legal case, fight it out in court, IF it is a moral case ... let it go. I, like a lot of others, am just so over it.

As I read this opinion piece, I reflected on something I had been reading over the weekend on Tony Abbott's involvement in establishing a 'slush fund' some years ago :http://www.theglobalmail.org/blog/in-politics-slush-happens/505/

I think you have heard all you're going to hear on the AWU slush fund.

A Case to answer?
Says who? Try 80% of Australia who don't think she has been honest, or 2/3rds who believe she should should once and for all tell the whole story, not just to fit the facts.

I believe Julia Gillard is crooked, and that her story changes every time that new evidence comes to light shows that she is desperately trying to cover this up. The question is whether she has been smart enough to hide all the evidence that could ruin her.

Abbott to give up on assaults would mean they have to talk politics, which must be avoided at any cost.
It's to much to ask for policies, as they can be pulled apart and examined.
Abbott can't talk economics, and i have grave doubts about the big boy.
Abbott has changed his mind on child care now as revealed the other day.
I wonder is this a party decision or an abbott decision.
He doesn't seem to keep policies for long. The death and destruction the carbon tax was going to cause, left us stunned.
To go on radio with false reports does not fare well for a would be statesman.
The ferocity and gumption of Gillard was underestimated by Tony.
They are at a loss as what to do next.

I'm still waiting for something of substance to be delivered from the opposition.

Why is it they're still imbibing their political and tactical succour from "The Godwin Grech Handbook of Political Stunts"?

Pathetic!

This article appears to be doing exactly what Abbott and company is attempting, creating something from nothing. I listened to both speak in the suspension of standing orders debate.

The worse I could make of the situation is that twenty years ago Julia Gillard gave some legal advice, wrote a document covering information she had been given, answered a few questions of a routine nature from the Registrar of Associations in WA and witnessed the signing of a document, all in effect as a no charge foreign order for her then boyfriend. Hardly something uncommon or illegal.

Almost all legal people would occasionally prefer not to know too much about why a particular client wants some legal paperwork or formality completed. They are not there to make ethical decisions about whether what a client has stated is true, although they should not connive in deceitful behaviour. They are there to ensure that legal requirements are complied with and, if the client is required to swear that what is included in the document is true, to witness that the client has so sworn properly.

Abbott and his front bench know and understand that.

Once the association was in existence Julia Gillard had no control over what the registered association did. Three years later she appears to have concluded that the association was not being used for its stated purpose. Probably the only evidence that she would have had at that time would be hearsay, maybe even pillow talk.

Together with other potential members I have several times been involved with the formation and registration of associations. It is a fairly simple job and Fair Trading will supply a free template document but charges registration of the submitted forms. I wondered sometimes whether FT even reads what is submitted as I have had an association approved the same day. If there is conflict about any interpretation of what the applicants have submitted the template is considered supreme.

As someone who falsely claimed to have a "degree in climatology",it is understandable that you would scribble such illinformed and unfounded claims against a Prime Minister who just happens to have a "real world" understanding of climaste change. As a lawyer,you should also understand that matters legal are argued on the basis of facts with evidence to support. However you have failed to provide more than news clips of the opinions of others with like views to your own. Significantly you have chosen to provide a copy purporting to be an unsigned cover sheet of documents lodged with the WA Corporate Affairs Comm claiming the text to be in Gillards handwriting (but no evidence to support this)and conveniently omitting to include the full documentation and the particulars therein, which fully detail the rules of the said association.
Most importantly you ignore the fact that NO person has been charged, let alone convicted,of any offence associated with this organisation, and that the WA Fraud squad has had all the relevant documents for the AWU WRA for a decade and a half and has as yet been unable to find ANY indictable offence by ANYONE.

Markandy

wantok raises an interesting point; Abbott did indeed set up a slush fund to try and run Hansen out of politics; like or loathe her [and I bet every defender of the PM commenting here loathes Hansen], Hansen did represent a large constituency; the coalition saw some of their constituency defecting to Hansen; they wanted to stop that; what eventually happened to Hansen, imprisonment, leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

There is however, NO equivalence between Abbott's "slush fund" and Gillard's work with the AWU association.

For instance was Abbott's fund registered? Was the registration legally done in respect of the relevant descriptions?

Gillard's association was not; end of story. Abbott's "slush fund" goes to political ethics, Gillard's involves possible criminality as has been described and not addressed by any of the defending comments here or elsewhere.

Foyle for instance makes light of the application and registration process; if it were so straightforward with ample assistance available from the Statutory body why did Gillard make such elementary mistakes like getting the purpose wrong, not making sure there were the requisite members and checking whether it contravened the rules of her primary client, the AWU, which it did. Does Foyle make such mistakes in his applications?

It is incontrovertible that Gillard knowingly put the incorrect purpose on the application. That brings the application potentially under S. 170.

The follow-up issue, which is circumstantial, is did Gillard know the association was not a slush fund either?

It is irritating that apologists ignore these important issues which are possibly tainting the highest office in the land; but then whatever it takes.

And do any of these apologists want to make a comment on what Wilson may have done with the association that Gillard set up.

I am totally unimpressed by both the argument put forward here and the prospect of further nonsense coming from our smokescreen of an Opposition.

If Tony wants to say something substantial, let him step out from behind the column of smoke and speak about the Coalition's policies, its proposed budget and its proposed front bench.

Without these, Australia has no Federal Opposition; only a smoke and noise machine.

(Yes, I know... semantics about there being no Coalition in opposition, only in government. Gives room to change anything. Reminiscent of Labor's post-election adjustments to policies re greenhouse gases and poker machines as they, too, were on the path to forming a coalition of Labor and Green. Well, if it is OK for Abbott to whinge about the changes which were needed to entice the Greens across the line, then surely he would deny - in writing - that he would do the same thing after the election, to accommodate the Nationals' perversities.)

This hullabaloo has nothing to do with what Julia Gillard did or didn't do back in the mists of time, a decade before the Howard/Abbott government's WMD lie campaign that got us into an illegal war. Malcolm Turnbull (the bloke who tried to pull the same trick as Abbott's when Kevin Rudd led the government) gloated the other day that the government would "die the death of a thousand cuts".

That's what it is about. To get rid, asap, of a government that part (but not of all) of the big end of town find to be an impediment to another shift of wealth from the many to the few.

The parliament was elected, the parliament appointed a government, and the government has been getting on with the job of governing. Ms Gillard has been keeping the show on the road. The noise is not about her character, it's about disputing the verdict of an election without waiting for the uncertainty of the next election at the due date.

An honest politician coenhite?
Now that's something I'd like to see, preferably in this lifetime!
Say like, honest John, with his, shovelled by the shipload, non core promises and the never ever GST!
And how can anyone promote as ethical or moral; vote buying, welfare for the rich?
Or the printing and delivering of flyers, falsely purporting to come from the left, and falsely alleging miscreant Muslim involvement, or some such?
And wouldn't that be an interesting juxtaposition or oxymoron?
Rhrosty.

Robert LePage,

"If we are going to prosecute/persecute a politician for having a possibly criminal past, there will not be many MPs left in the parliament."

Remaining would be mostly coalition members, with a few from the ALP and independents.

The left truly amazes me.

Last week I watched Julia Gillard refuse to answer every question put to her in Question Time, one question was put 4 times, yet you see nothing untoward in this. You are happy with the abusive language she used in the National Parliament of Australia as she dragged parliamentary conduct down to the bottom of the barrel.

It's clear that she spent many years in the nineties associating with two guys who now openly admit they were criminals possibly responsible for the siphoning of up to $1 million from the Australian Workers Union. She slept with them, she lived with them, she cooked, ate and partied with them, yet you see nothing suspicious in her actions and in her denials last week. I know nothing, I did nothing wrong she pleads!

She has supported other suspected criminals in Craig Thompson and Peter Slipper yet once again you see nothing suspicious, no possible criminality, yet when someone, such as Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop challenges and queries her about these matters on behalf of the unionists that were defrauded and the taxpayers like me who want answers you call foul and attack them as if they were the criminals.

It's a sad time in the state of this nation.

Daily we hear pro-Labor commentators proclaim that there is no smoking gun. PM Gillard denies doing anything wrong. Abbott is apparently conducting a witch-hunt.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems screamingly obvious to me that Ms. Gillard engaged in unprofessional conduct, and as such is culpable because she ought to have known that she was not protecting her client, the AWU.

As I see it, Ms. Gillard was not working for S&G; she was a partner in S&G. Her duty of care was to the firm’s largest client, the AWU. The AWU was the largest union in Australia and gave the firm immense prestige. She gave her lover, Bruce Wilson, advice on how to set up a slush fund She knew it was a slush fund, and we have her own admission that it was a slush fund when she snarled on television “Everyone knew it was a slush fund!” She ought to have known that the AWU Workplace Reform Association may not be in her client’s (the AWU, the "paying" client) best interest. Therefore she has, in my opinion, been guilty of serious professional misconduct. I am surprised that she was not charged with professional misconduct at the time, and furthermore, I am surprised that she was not struck off the list of lawyers for her conduct. Perhaps she was?

As long as PM Gillard refuses to state in the House her past behavior, even in her own defence, her continued evasive behavior damns her. There is a smoking gun and the political commentators should call it.

Geoffrey Kelley

Shadow Minister; I wonder where you get the quaint idea that coalition members are crime free?
One who was renowned for being convicted was our dear old friend Wilson Tuckey.
Now he was a liberal I believe? A good example of a liberal with integrity?
I can only repeat what I said earlier; "If this is all that our leaders can do at a time of crisis, then it is time that we replaced them with proper leaders".
ps I loved the description of "Bishop's Darth Vadar stare".

Only a climate sceptic and friend of 'Lord' Monckton, Alan Jones and other failed Liberal candidates like Andrew Bolt (all the usual suspects) would argue in support of Abbott's claim that the PM has broken the law.

Which law? In all the articles and pop blogs put out by Gillard haters, there is no evidence, only insinuation.

What about Howard's payout of taxpayers' dollars to his brother's ailing company - and then he closed the loophole by which Howard claimed legitimacy? I never read Abbott, Jones, Bolt, or Cox criticise this sleazy bailout.

Do you smell smoke? I do. Most times, where there is smoke there is a fire. No, I'm not talking about the romantic fire between Wilson and Gillard.

I'm talking about the shady dealing that occurred in the past when our "I've done nothing wrong" P.M. was a solicitor and wheeling and dealing with some very dubious AWU clients.

We need a Royal Commission to get to the bottom of this fracas and to clear the air once and for all.

When can it start?

It was 20 years ago, she was not in the union, the statute of limitations is long gone.

Her crime today is the same crime as every PM since Hawke - jailing innocent human beings in concentration camps without legal or human rights simply because they asked for our help.

The poll results from yesterday are indicative of Julia Gillard's folly. Labor 46 Liberal 54, 80% think Julia's honesty questionable)

The folly of personally attacking a person with a superior intellect. That's Labor's folly as well. Abbott is intellectually superior to all of them. He has Degrees in Law and Economics from Sydney Uni. and Degrees in Politic's and Philosophy from Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. That to me would be a really scary opponent and someone I'd go out of my way to avoid upsetting.

When Gillard attacked Abbott and labelled him a misogynist my first thought was

Abbott will destroy her for that false allegation.

He's done that by attacking her fundamental integrity. It's been immensely effective. His promise to pursue her after the next election isn't a hollow promise. If I was Julia I'd resign, emigrate and hide... now.

When Abbott promises a Royal Commission of enquiry with powers to prosecute charges, people won't ask themselves 'Is Abbott a misogynist?'

When Gillard promises to clean up Union fraud by giving further powers of investigation to Fair Work Australia, people will ask 'do we believe her?'

That's the issue the Labor Party will address.

Abbott has destroyed Gillard's Prime Ministership. He'll ensure her only legacy will be a belief in her dishonesty.

For all who claim all politicians are the same fellas you've swallowed the labor spin.

It's only incumbent regimes benefit from that line. The logic: if they're all the same why bother changing?

To those who are over it. I've found all my accquaintances are also over it. They're just angry, don't talk about it because they get angry, they've disengaged from all discussion, polls and surveys and are quietly waiting for the next election... which to all of them can't come soon enough.

Most of us have spent our lives raising our children to accept personal responsibility, to accept their mistakes and change the behaviours that caused those mistakes. Our PM is the epitome of everythging we've tried to teach our children not to be.

Paul R., you have not mentioned me directly, but I guess that your comments were addressed to me.

You said, “Which law? In all the articles and pop blogs put out by Gillard haters, there is no evidence, only insinuation.”

I am not a lawyer but I am sure her conduct as a solicitor warrants a charge of unprofessional conduct. She had two clients; the paying client was the AWU. Her non-paying client was her sleeping companion Bruce Wilson.

In my opinion she had a duty of care to protect the AWU, and as such she had no right to help set up an entity such as the AWU Workplace Reform Association. Her duty is clearly to protect the AWU from the likes of her boyfriend.

I am all you described in your message and more, but only a dyed-in-the-wool Labor supporter would defend her on a charge of unprofessional conduct.
Here is a definition of unprofessional conduct used in Australia
“Unprofessional conduct”, in relation to a legal practitioner, means:
a) an offence of a dishonest or infamous nature committed by the legal practitioner in respect of which punishment by imprisonment is prescribed or authorised by law;
b) any conduct in the course of, or in connection with, practice by the legal practitioner that involves substantial or recurrent failure to meet the standard of conduct observed by competent legal practitioners of good repute.
Geoffrey Kelley

All good stuff imajulianutter and correct.

The best part about this sordid affair is that Abbott wants to bring on a judicial enquiry into the AWU and union corruption. I'm thinking that's the real target. Juliar is the one under direct attack, but pinned behind her is the entire union movement. Now that's what I call a master stroke of tactics and strategy.

If that does come about, whew, there's gonna be a lot of stink when the lid comes off. It's really going to be something that will go down in history.

As expressed, bring on that election. It can't be soon enough.

To be a politician, part of your job description, you've got to have a 'shady' past. In my time there's only been one person in federal politics, who'd I describe as completely clean ?

His name, Ted Mack ! Former mayor of North Sydney, a state pollie at one time (I think) spent a relatively short period in Federal Parliament, but a thoroughly decent, honourable human being. I'm an ex copper, and I've got a real nose for 'the dirty', particularly the 'very dirty'.

However, to 'know' the author of a crime, is quite a different matter, than being able to 'prove' that individual committed that crime. The awful reality of the working detective ?

Apropos the PM, has she a case to answer ? I wouldn't know. Nor do I care. In my uneducated opinion, there are so many potential 'briefs' wandering around the corridors of power, in Canberra's Parliament House, you'd need a veritable regiment of dedicated detectives to do the job. But, believe me, the work's there.

You'd require an entire Court set aside, with a 'list' lasting a year, just to hear the 'committals' alone, from the immense number of matters that would come to light.

And in conclusion, I'll ask again, does the PM have a case to answer ? If she does, they'll never bring her to justice. That can only apply to the likes of you and me ?

After reading all the blogs and comments for and against I was amazed and astounded that no one raised an obvious point being;
Why is it that Julia Gillard was not stood down while an investigation takes place as I thought it is the common lawful/legal ethical principal which is practiced.

If a police officer is alleged to have committed an offence backed up by sufficient details to support the allegation the are either,
1. stood down with pay or,
2. stood down without pay,
Until a thorough investigation is conducted and a decision is reached as to whether there is or is not a case to answer!

It would appear the is sufficient details which have been submitted to warrant a thorough investigation which will either prove or disprove the allegations.

In previous elections I have supported the Labor Party with my vote, but my opinion has changed now and unless a thorough investigation is conducted into the A.W.U. slush fund, I like many other Labor voters I know will never support Labor again.

What does the author think about Obama birth certificate?

Kenny,

I think the author, like me, knows Obama has one.

Cohenite stated;
"It is incontrovertible that Gillard knowingly put the incorrect purpose on the application".

The wrong purpose may be in the hand writing of Julia Gillard but that does not mean she knowingly wrote an incorrect purpose. As a lawyer she would have asked her client, "What is the purpose of the association?" and written down the client's answer. One of the applicants signed the application as true and correct, not Julia Gillard. The future PM witnessed that oath.

People conveniently ignore the time difference between statements. The comment by the future PM when she described the fund as a slush fund was made about three years after the association was established. She stated what the associations accounts had become, not what the applicants had claimed was intended for the association.

The fact that people who wished to establish an association were members of a union does not prevent them from doing so, even in the association was in respect to some aspects of the work of union members. Members of a union are entitled to act independent of the union and for the assocition as registeredare only constrained to the rules of the union while working their prescribed hours for their workplace.
The WA commissioner accepted the name of the association.

I was finishing the editing of my last comment when the item disappeared. I may have hit a wrong button.

The last paragraph is the main problem and should have read as follows:.
The fact that people who wished to establish an association were members of a union does not prevent them from doing so, even in the association was in respect to some aspects of the work or workplaces of union members.

Members of a union are entitled to act independent of the union and, for the association as registered, are only constrained by the rules of the union to not acting against the interests of the union. I doubt if the rules and aims of the new association disclose any intent to do so.

How the association was operated after being formed and registered is another matter but then the association was not under the control or direction of Julia Gillard at any time.

The WA commissioner accepted the name of the association.

Foyle,

how do you reconcile

'The comment by the future PM when she described the fund as a slush fund was made about three years after the association was established. She stated what the associations accounts had become, not what the applicants had claimed was intended for the association.'

And Gillard's oft stated claim she had no knowledge of the workings of the association?

Those statements are contradictory. One is a lie. Which one do you think is a lie ... or are both lies?

Gillard's problem is that she spilt her guts and she keeps on and on and on doing that. With each new defence she hangs herself higher and higher.

@imajulianutter:

The PM is entitled, as are all of us, to the presumption of innocence. That is not conditional. It is not up to the likes of imajulianutter or me, armed with no allegation and partial knowledge of the facts, to determine guilt.

Indeed, there is no charge - although ima(etc) has suggested a few charges for which, in his or her estimation, the PM has already been charged, tried and found guilty. Well, she has not been charged or tried and is certainly currently not guilty.

Much as one side of this discussion would have it otherwise, Julia has no case to answer, and therefore she is only in an imaginary bind. Bigots choose to decide that failure to answer an imaginery non-charge is proof of guilt. How absurd!

If ima(etc) would but provide a true name and address instead of hiding behind a veil of anonymity like a weakling, then perhaps a charge could be laid... by Julia. The charge could well be one of defamation.

However, I suspect that there are far jucier targets available, should the PM choose to aim for a new house, pool or retirement fund. Who knows? After the next election, she may well find herself with time and incentive to chase some of those who have defamed her. There is plenty of time.

geoffreykelley: sorry to disappoint you, but I was referring to the original article, which has yet to substantiate anything illegal that Gillard has done.

Just as Abbott did nothing illegal when, as Michelle Grattan pointed out, he set up the anti-Hanson slush fund and refused to say who donated money to the cause, nor has Gillard done anything wrong from what I can see.

Once again - what law has Gillard broken?

If you're worried about unethical behaviour, what do you say about Abbott telling us not to believe anthing he says, and only to believe what he puts in writing. What about Howard bailing his brother out with taxpayer funds and then closing the loophole so no other Australian could be bailed out in the same way. Howard never spent two hours in front of the media explainin himself as Gillard has done.

Don't think this is about ethics, or corruption. The Liberals have a dirt file on Gillard - we saw that file on Channel Nine last week. This is about getting rid of someone who is not part of the Old Boys Network.

Robert LePage

"I wonder where you get the quaint idea that coalition members are crime free?"

I never did nor implied so. This is either a fabrication by you, or a sign that you can't read.

What I am saying is that the number of Labor MPs committing criminal and corrupt acts far exceeds those from the coalition. That you had to cite an assault case from 1967 that resulted in a $50 fine proves my point. I can match that with your ex Labor president, sitting MP and a raft of NSW ex labor MPs facing serious corruption charges for $millions.

JohnBennetts

Firstly the presumption of innocence exists only in the criminal court.
Secondly, the main charge against the PM is that she acted unprofessionally and unethically, for which there is ample documented evidence.
Finally, her refusal to answer the main questions, her refusal to disclose anything, and her changing story is not the behaviour of someone whose hands are clean.

PaulR,

Slush funds in themselves are often called contingency funds, and are not in themselves out of the ordinary. The issue with Juliar's slush fund is not that it was a slush fund, but that it was incorporated as a separate legal entity with a title that contrary to the corporations act deliberately implied that it was an off shoot of the AWU, and that its purpose was work place reform. At the time Juliar clearly knew that neither was true.

Furthermore Juliar as a partner knew that the AWU was a major client, and that using the AWU name without permission was a fundamental breach of conflict which forced G&S to give up the AWU as a client.

If Juliar had called it an "election contribution fund" it would have complied with the legal and ethical requirements, and would have made it difficult to use to commit fraud.

Here's Shadow Minister's pin-up boy and his adventures in Slush Fun[d]land.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/22/1061529330032.html

"Obviously in hindsight I shouldn't have done it. But if I had my time again and it was necessary to make an alliance with some pretty unusual people to stop a very serious threat to the social cohesion of the country,well, I would do it. I mean, how else were we going to stop One Nation at the time?"

(Of course, the reality was that the "serious threat" was to the Liberal Party's voter base)

Dodge-a-rama!

“Once again - what law has Gillard broken?”

Possible laws contravened by the proven actions and statements of the PM:

1 Sections 8 and 43 of Western Australia’s Associations Incorporation Act 1987

2 Sections 170 and 409 of the Western Australian Criminal Code 1913

3 Section 83A of the Victorian Crimes Act

Contrary to the astounding defences posted here and elsewhere about the PM there are no shortages of possible offences which her PROVEN acts and statements would satisfy.

The only other defence posted is that because Abbott set up a slush fund to finance getting rid of Hansen the PM should not be held accountable; this is a spurious point; Abbott contravened no relevant laws; or, at least, the assiduous efforts of the PM’s defenders have uncovered none; so, in actual fact, the complaint is based on a dislike of Abbott and is, therefore, entirely political.

What this means is that the defenders of the PM care nothing about the law or accountability; their concern is that their side of politics should be exempt from the operation of the law. In short they subscribe to Richardson’s adage of “whatever it takes”.

The PM would be proud.

Hi Cohenite,

Can you see how this looks to those seriously trying to understand this issue?

You have just said in your last post, “Possible laws contravened by …”

Possible laws? Surely it is no great party trick to list laws someone may “possibly” have broken. Critics of Tony Abbott could do that with his anti-Pauline Hanson slush fund. Critics of Julie Bishop could do that with her previous career litigating asbestos sufferers until they died. Critics of John Howard could do that with his dealings in the Honan matter. Critics of Howard Government ministers could do that with the overseas aid money they stole to bribe Saddam Hussein.

Finding “possible” laws contravened is easy-peasy. The critical task is to find an actual law broken. For this you need actual evidence.

The key problem with the article seems to be the author’s confusing the association started by Wilson and Blewitt with the “slush fund”.

A “fund” is an account with a bank or other financial institution into which monies are placed for later disbursement, usually by cheque. There was at least one bank account used by the association in question after it had been incorporated.

But an incorporated association is a different entity from its bank accounts. The former is legally constituted by a commissioner after all legal requirements are met. The latter are opened by a financial institution on application by eligible account holders.

What Ms Gillard referred to in her discussions within Slater and Gordon as a “slush fund” was a bank account, not the association.

Does this make sense? Perhaps if the author has an accountant or a lawyer, he or she may be able to explain the technical difference.

Because it’s fairly important. This is the confusion in the mind of the author that renders most of his argument nonsensical.

The other flaws in the author’s position and the subsequent defence of the article have been well observed by Rhrosty, Mally, Wantok, 579, Poirot, Foyle, JohnBennetts, EmperorJulian and PaulR, especially Foyle.

To Shadow Minister: It's interesting you use the term Juliar - a term coined by Alan Jones, the well-known misogynist and anti-female radio announcer. Only supporters of Jones' anti-female tirades (ask Amanda Vanstone) would be low enough to copy his lines - but you probably also support his taking of hidden payments in return for favourable comments. (Perhaps Labor should offer to pay Jones to show logic and reason?)

You give your motives away by using this term.

Perhaps someone else could provide a real answer to the basic question: what laws has Gillard broken and how do you reconcile this with Tony Abbott's anit-Hanson slush fund and Howard's taxpayer funded bailout of his brother?

Politically, what's intersting is how little the public regard the latest Abbott/Bishop attacks on Gillard. I think most regard it as another Godwin Grech moment. Indicative too when a Coalition MP asked Abbott last Friday - when are we going to drop this line of attack

Well, go ahead Alan, list the possible laws contravened by your hit list of conservatives.

I've given you 'actual' laws which the PM has possibly broken. The use of the word "possibly" here is because the presumption of innocence and due process must apply even if someone has been charged.

And "actual evidence" has been listed, particularly the PM's admission that she knew the declared purpose of the application for association was different from what SHE said was the 'real' purpose.

As has also been shown, that 'real' purpose is contradicted by real evidence in the form of the cheque drawn on association's bank account.

But like the animals in Animal farm good little citizens like you will continue to deny what is before your eyes.

Your attempt to confuse the association with the various bank accounts or "funds" is pathetic. In respect of the association the Commissioner will register any application after he has been satisfied of the bona fides of the proposed association. In this case he was satisfied by the PM's application and the follow up letter which the PM has acknowledged writing but which has mysteriously disappeared. If misrepresentations are made to the Commissioner and he acts on them that is the fault of the misrepresenter, in this case the PM. But then of course we know in your moral universe misrepresenting the purpose of the association is not lying.

It is the PM herself who used the expression "slush fund", and the term was not separate from the association in her explanations to S&G.

In respect of the actual bank accounts; it appears there were 3; money relating to the Victorian scam did not go to the association account, but went instead to the AWU Members Welfare Association no 1 account; the WA scam, where money was extracted from Thiess, went into the association account, as did, apparently the money raised from the Boulder Widows and Orphans fund.

Care to apply your moral blowtorch to that?

Something to remember is the laws of the day years ago may have amendments now. So those amendments have to be disregarded.
No one has come up with proof, so all it is,is reading something between the lines. Which does not amount to proof.

Hi again Anthony,

Yes, I share your outrage at the actions of Blewitt and Wilson, along with all unethical union activities.

But the quest has been underway for years to find actual illegality on the PM’s part. Except in the mind of the internet nutjobs it appears to have spectacularly failed.

Pretty sure I’m in the majority of reputable journos here, Anthony. I’m not declaring Ms Gillard innocent. Just observing there is no evidence of wrongdoing – despite concerted attempts to find it for decades.

But you really do need to think through the difference between the association and its bank accounts, Anthony. Yes, they are connected. They were started by the same union officials. But they remain different entities.

Here’s an example of why the distinction matters, where you claim:

“The fact that the PM had to correspond with the WA Commissioner to vouch for the association would tend to lend weight to the claim that the declared purpose of the association was a "material particular" because if the ostensible real purpose of a "slush fund" had been declared, or even the more benign and preferred "re-election fund", the Commissioner would not have registered the association.”

Anthony, the letter to the commissioner concerned his or her decision to incorporate the association. Opening the bank accounts had nothing whatsoever to do with the commissioner.

They were established at another time and place with another organisation altogether.

No?

Cheers, AA

PaulR

Yes I do use the term Juliar, and first did so shortly after she lied to Rudd and rolled him, though more frequently since it became the hallmark epithet of her treachery and deceit, since its adoption by Allan Jones. While it includes only a small change to her name, it manages to convey both the essence of her character, and the contemptuous regard in which she is held.

I assume that your attempt to link my values with that of Alan Jones based on a single shared term is not driven by the IQ of a squirrel, but because of a feeble attempt to get me to stop using the term. Unfortunately as a left whinger, your discomfort simply makes the use of the the term that much sweeter.

AA,

Your comment "The key problem with the article seems to be the author’s confusing the association started by Wilson and Blewitt with the “slush fund”. A “fund” is an account with a bank or other financial institution into which monies are placed for later disbursement" is wrong. It is clear that the association was to be the vehicle for the slush fund.

As per the transcript:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/what-julia-told-her-firm/story-e6frg6z6-1226455281078

" so 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."

Alan, it would appear that you and not the author are confused.

@ShadowMinister:

This is getting sillier and sillier. Now we have a situation where the presumption of innocence is presumed to apply only in criminal cases. Well, wasn't the root of this discussion, as presented from the noisy corner, an accusation that somehow what has taken place was actually beyond just being a civil matter but one that extended into criminality?

Of course it was, but now we hear that... really it wasn't, because that would require DUE PROCESS and the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, neither of which should be available to Julia, because... well... just because we don't think that she deserves them because she is as guilty as sin, because someone said that she is and that's the end of that.

At least the crazy-brave Cohenite has the guts to say that criminal matters are at foot, even to specifying parts of the WA Criminal Code that he thinks have been broken. He can expect a letter from Julia's lawyers some time soon.

Come on guys; you are making the accusations. Put them, civil and/or criminal, in print and see where they get you. Put up or shut up. In the meantime, the PM has no case to answer and no need to play this game.

Quotation:
"Firstly the presumption of innocence exists only in the criminal court... "

Whose stories are continually changing? I think that Julia is going to be a very difficult fish to land, especially when the head fisherman in the boat is himself very familiar with his own slush fund, which was used to great effect in an electoral contest much more recently than Julia's claimed indiscretions. Pot, Kettle, Black?

You are being disingenuous Alan.

The distinction between a slush fund, that is an association osensibly set up to raise funds to enable re-election of union officials, and bank accounts set up in the association's name to deposit the funds raised by the association, is an irrelevant distinction.

It is irrelevant because the association must be set up before the consequent and related bank accounts can be established.

The real issue about which you are obfuscating is that the PM misrepresented the purpose of the association to the commissioner who by his own admission would not have registered the association if the ostensible 'real' purpose had been disclosed because it would have been in conflict with the real AWU.

The term slush fund in this context is a generic term, which, according to the PM, everyone is doing, means an organisation, usually an association, which raises money pursuant to its purpose of getting officials elected. Any bank accounts set up are merely the means by which the association processes the funds raised for the purpose.

There is no meaningful distinction as you purport. I have wasted enough time on your spurious point.

The facts remain:

The PM misrepresented the purpose of the association.

There is strong evidence that ostensible 'real' purpose of the association being a slush fund was not true as a large sum of the association's money was used to purchase Blewitt's house.

AA,

Again you say "there is no evidence of wrongdoing" Which is patently not true unless you narrow the definition of wrongdoing to only criminality. There were a number of safeguards that Juliar blithely disregarded.

JB,

The presumption of innocence legally only applies in criminal cases. However, a person has the right not to have his reputation impugned without reasonable cause (giving rise to actions for libel and slander). However, there is no assumption either way, and if a defendant can show reasonable cause for his belief there is no case for a law suit, and why Cohenite is likely to be safe.

On the other hand, the complete absence of evidence by Labor when attacking Abbott (ie he is a misogynist because he stands near someone displaying a sign etc) shows that labor's definition of the presumption of innocence applies only to them.

@Shadow Minister,regarding your penultimate post:

Yes, that is exactly the point I’m making:

“so 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.”

It’s quite clear the incorporated association held the account, or slush fund. One entity opened and then operated another entity. The association and the account are not the same thing, are they?

The commissioner incorporated the association. The bank opened the accounts. Correct?

We don’t know from the transcript what the time gap between the incorporation of the association and the opening of the accounts was, though, do we?

@ Cohenite: No, Anthony, the distinction is not irrelevant. It’s probably the key error being made by Andrew Bolt, Michael Smith and the other internet nutjobs. And is probably the main reason their efforts are so far failing spectacularly.

Yes, we know about Ms Gillard’s role in assisting the commissioner to set up the association. But do we know about her involvement setting up the bank accounts? Or in the subsequent use of the accounts for improper purposes?

To claim that a lawyer who assists a commissioner in legally and properly setting up an association is forever culpable for the actions of the association is ludicrous, isn’t it?

But if it’s any consolation, Anthony, you are not alone in making such a dopey error.

Cheers, AA

@ Cohenite:
"The real issue about which you are obfuscating is that the PM misrepresented the purpose of the association to the commissioner who by his own admission would not have registered the association if the ostensible 'real' purpose had been disclosed because it would have been in conflict with the real AWU."

Not so.

The issue was not whether the new association was misprepresented. Not even nearly. Further, the aims of the association have not been shown to "put it in conflict with the AWU" as you state repeatedly, in some vain hope that repetition will turn lack of evidence into a certainty. The issue was that registration of a new association to represent employees, a union, came under separate (industrial) legislation. That was the nature of the question and of the answer.

Where did you get the notion that the Commissioner suspected that there was a conflict between this association and the AWU? Alan Jones, perhaps? Gerard Henderson? Bolt? Some other high profile researcher and fact checker?

Nothing was misrepresented. There was no "conflict with the AWU", at least not until somewhere down the track when funds held in trust in accounts opened by the new association may have been diverted to a private purpose... about which the answer has been on the public record for weeks. Julia Gillard knew nothing about the diversion of funds by others, played no role in this diversion and did not benefit from the funds in question. Read the previous sentence through several times if needed, but make sure to finally understand that there was no misrepresentation and no conflict at the relevant time. No porkies. And no prior knowledge of wrongdoing because the wrongdoing had not yet occurred.

There's nothing to see here... move on, folks.

@ Shadowminister:
"...if a defendant can show reasonable cause for his belief there is no case for a law suit, and why Cohenite is likely to be safe.

Two points:
1. To presume that Cohenite holds "reasonable beliefs" is a step into the dark. Beliefs, yes, but reasonable?
2. Cohenite is precisely the one who bangs on loudest and most often about Gillard's supposed criminality. Thus, even by your own standards, our PM is entitled to a presumption of innocence which Cohenite has repeatedly and wilfully avoided displaying.

John Nennetts

Where have I said Gillard isn't entitled to a presumption of innocence in a criminal court?
Where have I defamed her?
What charges have I suggested she face?

I have simply given my opinion.

You have given yours.

It seems to me that you've name called, abused and said I should face the threat of defamation actions simply because we have different opinions.

Well well how typically leftie and what a terribly clumsey attempt to silence criticism or discussion.

Are you proud of youself?

Time is something Julia might find herself doing if Abbott follows through with his intention and the courts judge her guilty of supplying incorrect information to the WA authorities.

Alan Austin

I see Foyle has made your list. Could you please prompt him to asnwer my latest querry of him.

This
"how do you reconcile

'The comment by the future PM when she described the fund as a slush fund was made about three years after the association was established. She stated what the associations accounts had become, not what the applicants had claimed was intended for the association.'

And Gillard's oft stated claim she had no knowledge of the workings of the association?

Those statements are contradictory. One is a lie. Which one do you think is a lie ... or are both lies?"

In response to my original question, Shadow Minister and fellow travellers - including the author - have failed to answer the basic question: what law has Gillard broken.

The answer is none.

All that Mr Cox and Shadow Minister have done is claim she has broken a law, and have compiled a lot of conjecture to make this claim.

Little wonder ordinary voters don't regard this issue as worthy of their time. They don't see any evidence. What passes for smoke is mist and misty-eyed Liberals, pining for the days when a 'real man' is in the Lodge, are clutching at any Gordon Grech that moves to drag them centre stage.

As for the use of "Juliar" I think, Shadow Minister, you need to examine the behaviour of your leaders and how such terms of abuse reflect on yourself before you cast such stones.

Abbott has consistently lied to us about climate change (a load of crap), the carbon tax (which he supported until Gillard did), and so on. As for your mentor, Alan Jones, he has issued yet another public apology, this time for lying about the woman who told us she was intimidated by Abbott when he bashed in the wall next to her head.

Ask my friend Amanda Vanstone what she thinks of Jones and his attitude towards women.

JohnBennets and the deceptively jovial Alan show an agglomeration of errors, deliberate or otherwise.

Wilson and Blewitt could not have set up their bank accounts without reference to a legal entity which is why the association was crucial. Go into a bank and try and set up a bank account titled CMFEU without an authorised legal entity. The sequence is crucial and the association must come first; the association IS the slush fund by virtue of its ostensible 'real' purpose as admitted by the PM; the bank account is the mechanism by which the slush fund, the association, processes its revenue.

To argue otherwise is just bush lawyer crap by these 2.

We know the commissioner would not have accepted the first application for association because he has said so;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/union-name-would-have-triggered-queries-registrar/story-fng5kxvh-1226527047365

This information is from the horse's mouth; not Jones, Bolt or any of Austin's evil media sources. Even Bill Shorten said the 'slush fund" was “inappropriate” and “unauthorised".

The PM had to misrepresent the purpose before the commissioner would grant the registration. I repeat she has admitted that.

That is just black and white. It is evidence to sustain a S.170 case to answer; whether the PM is guilty or not would still have to be determined by due process so when JohnBennets says I am denying the PM a presumption of innocence he doesn't know what he is talking about; she has a case to answer on my reading of S.170. That is different from saying she is guilty.

Perhaps Bennets and Austin should read S.170 instead of writing speculative rubbish.

Bennets and Austin are simply in denial.

There is no doubt that this a smelly,putrid affair.If Julia goes down,so does Labor and we can see all the hangers on,defending the indefensible,fearing that their safe little nook in the tax payers pocket will soon end.

It is all about money and security and to hell with the truth and integrity that makes our society function.

Ms Gillard attended the auction at which a property was purchased with funds from the AWU Workplace Reform Association on whose inauguration - articles and memorandum of association - she had advised. She witnessed her boyfriend buying the house in the name of Ralph Blewett with funds from the Association which she had helped to set up. Her boyfriend then lived in it.

Question: in what way did the purchase of this house for Mr Wilson further the aims of an AWU organisation, or at least an organisation using its initials and purporting to advance workplace reform ?

Question: in the three years of their relationship, did Ms Gillard ever touch base with Mr Wilson, and ask about how the Workplace Reform Association was doing, even achieving ? Perhaps in congenial surroundings, in the actual house which seems to have been its only outcome ? Did she stay there often ?

Question: who sold this house later, and what became of the proceeds of that sale ?

Just wondering, before I cast my vote .........

@ JohnBennetts: Correct. This issue will probably be an embarrassing memory after Christmas.

@imajulianutter: Foyle can speak for him or herself. Your question, however, seems to arise from the same confusion as cohenite’s.

Ms Gillard was not referring to the association as a slush fund. She was referring to one of the bank accounts later used by the association for allegedly dodgy deeds.

Understood correctly, Keith, there is no contradiction.

@cohenite: Re “Wilson and Blewitt could not have set up their bank accounts without reference to a legal entity which is why the association was crucial.”

Correct, Anthony. The association came first. The bank account referred to as a slush fund came later. They are not the same entity. We agree.

Re: “the association IS the slush fund by virtue of its ostensible 'real' purpose as admitted by the PM …”

No, not correct. The bank account was the slush fund, not the association.

Re: “the bank account is the mechanism by which the slush fund, the association, processes its revenue.”

No. Not quite. The bank account (or slush fund) is the mechanism by which the association processes its revenue.

Re: “The PM had to misrepresent the purpose before the commissioner would grant the registration”.

No, there was no misrepresentation. It only appears so to those who mistakenly believe the association was the slush fund.

Re: “I repeat she has admitted that.”

No, Anthony, the PM hasn’t admitted anything of the sort.

@Loudmouth: Re “Ms Gillard attended the auction at which a property was purchased with funds from the AWU Workplace Reform Association on whose inauguration … she had advised. She witnessed her boyfriend buying the house in the name of Ralph Blewett with funds from the Association ...”

Joe, I bought a house in 1992. My then girlfriend came to the auction. It was a big day.

Had I embezzled the money for the deposit, would I have told my girlfriend? What would I stand to gain by so doing?

Pretty sure Bruce Wilson answers your other questions in his ABC TV interview last Wednesday.

Cheers, AA

AA,

According to the interview, the sole purpose of the association was to be an independent vehicle to contain the funds, whether it was in one bank account, bullion etc, calling the association a slush fund is entirely valid. Your semantics are laboured and irrelevant.

PaulR,

My main argument is that she acted improperly, unethically and in direct contravention of legal standards, which is why she had to leave Slater and Gordon.

It is also illegal to register a legal body with a name directly at odds with its purpose, but so is driving 2 kmph above the speed limit.

The point is that as a lawyer, strict standards of conduct are expected and enforced, and as a partner in a major legal firm ignorance or even "forgetfulness" of these standards is unforgivable.

So, Shadow Minister, you are now backing down and accept that Gillard did not break the law, even though you, Cox, Jones, Bishop, and others have made these wild accusations, with a style of writing that demonstrates you have no respect for the truth or the office of PM.

Your claim is so similar to what the Tea Party and Republican Party in the US wrongly said about Obama not being born in America (a clear racist insult to Hawaiins) and that he is a Muslim (wrong).

I am one of many Australians who are sick and tired of the Fox-News style of abuse and hence why there is diminishing respect in this country for Abbott and his fellow travellers.

The personal, sexist and misogynist attacks began with the banners proudly displayed with Abbott's approval "Bob Brown's Bitch" and "Ditch the Bitch". Jones, Abbott, et al have never apologised or accepted responsibilty for encouraging the fruitcakes of Australia to keep on attacking Gillard on the basis of her sex.

It's not a long bow to draw when I say that Abbott and Jones give succour to those who see women as third-class sex objects and who physically attack women.

If similar things were said about Howard when he was PM, you would have been screaming with a shrillness reflecting how the Chinese government reacts when things don't go their way.

I'd still like to hear from those who firmly believe that Gillard broke the law about how they view Abbott's own slush fund he set up to demolish Hanson, why they believe Abbott when he says we should only believe him if puts things in writing, and why they accept Abbott has done an about face on climate change and the carbon tax, which he promoted as Coalition policy in 2007.

Of all the hysterical, finger-pointing defences of the PM’s actions the only one with a semblance of interest is Alan Austin’s.

Alan fancies himself as a bit of an expert on legal matters; his argument is that the ‘slush fund’ is not the association which the PM set up but the bank account[s] set up using the association as the authorising legal entity. So, when the PM, in her exit interview with S&G and later at her press conference spoke of the ‘slush fund’ Alan’s defence is that she was not referring to the association but the bank account[s]. By referring to bank account[s] as the ‘slush fund’ Alan says there is then no misrepresentation between the declared purpose of the association, workplace safety, and the PM’s reference to bank account[s] as ‘slush funds’, that is account[s] into which money was to be deposited and then used for re-election purposes.

To sum up, Alan’s position is that the bank account[s] set up in the name of the association which purpose was to raise funds to facilitate work safety were meant instead to house funds raised to re-elect union officials.

If this were the case it goes beyond sharp practice which even a cursory glance at Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s section on fraud and misrepresentation would show.

In fact such an interpretation would have devastating ramifications for the PM; instead of admitting to knowingly misrepresenting the purpose of the association, if the reasonable interpretation of what the PM said and did is made that she was referring to the association as the “slush fund”, and therefore being potentially shielded by how Wilson and Blewitt used the association and the bank account[s], if Alan is right the PM is admitting to knowing what the bank account[s] were being used for. That would mean she could not claim NOT to know what Wilson and Blewitt were doing with the funds they obtained and processed through these ‘slush fund’ account[s].

Well done Alan.

Alan,

Wrong, it appears Mr Foyle cannot speak up.

Forgotten after Christmas ... begs the question ... After which Christmas?

'Ms Gillard was not referring to the association as a slush fund. She was referring to one of the bank accounts later used by the association for allegedly dodgy deeds.'

Indeed if that is the case ... fine. But it is irrelevant whether she was refering to a slush fund or one bank account. What is relevant is you showing you accept Gillard knew of the workings of the association ... which is something she also denies ... frequently.

If you argue Gillard didn't know she set up a slush fund at the time of setting up the association the logic dictates that if Gillard set up a bonafide association with bonafide (stated) objectives then for Gillard to much later raise 'slush fund' as an intent indicates Gillard would have had knowledge of the alleged fraudulent workings of the association.

Alan once this matter is fully aired in an enquiry you will already be on the public record as one of those who defended her actions ... just as I will be as one of those questioning her actions.

You position is a lot less favourable. In a democracy it is ok to question and raise accusations. Usually the best defence is to deny everything and leave the defence to be argued later in official venues You aren't helping her.

Gillard's spilt her guts and now cannot recant. This supposedly very clever woman has wedged herself on two of her own words ...'slush fund'.

PaulR,

Have you a problem with reading English? I neither said nor implied that Juliar did not break the law.

If Juliar knew the purpose of the Association was not work place safety reform when she registered, then technically she broke the law. In addition what she did was in a direct conflict of interest with the AWU.

This would not get the man in the street more than a slap on the wrist fine, but as a lawyer would probably get her disbarred (if referred to the bar), and certainly forced her to leave her employment.

Juliar is the one that has no regard for the office of PM.

Your presumption of guilt on the behalf of Abbott is moronically assuming that Abbott in addressing a rally automatically endorses the views of all those attending. Using your logic I could conclude that Juliar was the ring leader in the AWU fraud and the HSU fraud.

Which one of these is true, from the viewpoint of Julia Gillard, partner in Slater & Gordon, and presumably thereby a lawyer for the AWU, its major client:

* the AWU Workplace Reform Association was set up to promote workplace safety for AWU members, as attested to the relevant WA authorities in setting up the association.

* the AWU Workplace Reform Association was set up to assist in the re-election of certain AWU officials, including a close acquaintance of Julia Gillard, to the relative disadvantage of other AWU officials who may have been seeking re-election. The AWU as a whole was effectively the major client of Slater & Gordon, and thereby Julia Gillard at the time, a partner in Slater & Gordon.

* Funds derived from generous donations from major construction and mining companies - those especially concerned about workplace 'safety' - and delivered to the AWU Workplace Reform Association in brown paper-bags, were used to purchase a house for the close acquaintance of Julia Gillard, a partner in Slater & Gordon, doing work for the AWU - or at least for its AWU Workplace Reform Association.

A file was not opened to deal with any of these potential hassles. What happened to the house seems to be unknown, and perhaps gthe proceeds have nothing to do with Julia Gillard.

Transparency is a precious commodity in both law firms and unions, and - to paraphrase Lenin - that is why it has to be rationed so sparingly in situations such as this.

Come on, Alan :)

@Shadow Minister:

You appear to have been reading Murdoch media stories. Not sure if I'm the first to break this to you, SM, but: They lie!

Yes, it's a shock. But it's true.

Did you read this, SM?

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/the-canberra-volcano-questions-the-pm-must-answer/

@cohenite: Re:

“To sum up, Alan’s position is that the bank account[s] set up in the name of the association which purpose was to raise funds to facilitate work safety were meant instead to house funds raised to re-elect union officials.”

Correct, Anthony.

Bank accounts are routinely used for purposes other than those originally intended.

As discussed elsewhere, the Jimminies cricket team opened a bank account to facilitate playing cricket. We have since used it, jokingly called our “slush fund”, for many purposes, including wine tasting bus tours. Nothing to do with bat on ball.

Our church opened a contingency account in the 1970s for some purpose God only recalls which we refer to as a “slush fund” – now used to help people in need.

Our family has an interest bearing account we refer to as a “slush fund” set up to park some euros before buying our house. It is now used for different purposes.

Starting a fund for one purpose and later using it for another is in no way remarkable.

Why not? Because no-one asks and no-one cares why bank accounts are opened. This is one of the fundamental errors embedded in the original article here, and in much of the following discussion.

Certainly, to blame the lawyer/accountant/treasurer who helped incorporate the cricket club or start the church or who did the conveyancing on our house for later uses of a bank account is, well, ridiculous.

@imajulianutter and Loudmouth:

Ms Gillard told the press in August: "the purpose of this association was to support the re-election of union officials who would run a campaign saying that they wanted re-election because they were committed to reforming workplaces in a certain way, to increasing occupational health and safety, to improving the conditions of members of the union …"

There’s no inconsistency. Certainly no illegality. Is there?

Cheers, AA

AA,

Have you any legal background? Have you ever incorporated a legal body? All I see is acrobatic semantics with no legal reality. I have registered legal bodies for my own use (not in WA) but even going through the forms it is clear that registering the name of the company that is misleading with regards its purpose is an offence. I used a non specific title such as Joe Blogs trading. I did not use titles such as RSPCA welfare association, or Child cancer assistance fund.

You keep banging on about bank accounts when they are completely irrelevant. Banks accounts are opened in the name of the person or legal body and the use of which, legal or otherwise, is the sole responsibility of the person/ entity.

Creating legal bodies with misleading names have been used many times to commit fraud, and this is why there are specific laws making it illegal, and is why Juliar as a lawyer, in a position of trust, doing so knowingly for her boyfriend is particularly bad. Remember Justice Marcus Einfeld who got 2 years for a minor offence because as a justice his word carried a huge level of trust. The same applies to Lawyers.

The issues of using the AWU name, and "forgetting" to open a file are cases of rank dishonesty and unethical conduct similar to her performance as PM.

Alan,

A lawyer is an officer of the court, sworn to uphold the law, let's not forget that.

Given the long, long history of fraud and misrepresentation, you may be quite right that "Starting a fund for one purpose and later using it for another is in no way remarkable", but if the actual purposes of an entity are quite different from what they purported to be in the documents setting it up, then there may have been a crime committed in the eyes of the statutory body overseeing such entities.

One problem with stand-over tactics, 'protection', whatever it may be called, is that the 'victims' usually don't, by definition, complain. Whether it is the Mafia or unions, bodies in the position to stand over others have capitalised on this for a very long time. Non-complaint doesn't make it legal.

Did Julia commit an offense in all of this ? Did she know that her boyfriend was using funds from such sources, in the name of a union organisation, to buy a house and set himself up ? Or was she merely negligent and incompetent ?

Perhaps an Abbott government - perish the thought ! - will set up a Royal Commission into the whole sordid matter.

Joe

Hi SM,

Legal training? Not a law degree. Just the law subjects for a commerce diploma – contract, commercial, industrial, etc. A while ago now.

Yes, have set up businesses and run incorporated bodies.

This matter doesn’t involve complex law, SM. Just straightforward analysis of the Workplace Reform Association’s application and their lawyer's role setting it up. Both seem quite transparent. We have the form (file no. A1002262E) and we have Ms Gillard’s 1995 interview.

Re: “You keep banging on about bank accounts when they are completely irrelevant. Banks accounts are opened in the name of the person or legal body and the use of which, legal or otherwise, is the sole responsibility of the person/ entity.”

Absolutely correct. Minister. Precisely the point. None of the funds later opened by Blewitt nd Wilson had anything whatsoever to do with the lawyer who helped set up the WRA initially.

Re: “it is clear that registering the name of the company that is misleading with regards its purpose is an offence.”

Correct also. But there is no evidence of misleading, is there?

Have you read the actual application, SM? The form requires a short, succinct one-line descriptor – showing the objectives in broad, general terms. Space was allowed for about seven words.

Whoever filled it out actually wrote nine words, and cheated a little by squeezing the last word on to a second line. Naughty!

Actual words: “Development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces”.

No, they didn’t mention by whom, when, by what specific means, the process of electing office bearers, sources of funding, application of funding, future real estate investments or any other details. The commissioner didn’t want any of that. He wanted six or seven words.

Re: “The issues of using the AWU name, and "forgetting" to open a file are cases of rank dishonesty and unethical conduct …”

No, that seems untrue also, SM. The word "forgetting" you are quoting appears nowhere in the transcript. Or anywhere else.

Have you been reading Murdoch stories again, SM?

That is not the path to truth and wisdom.

Cheers, AA

Alan continues to ignore the Elephant in the room; if the PM was referring to the bank account as a "slush fund" she must have had intimate knowledge of her lover's financial arrangements. If she knew that the bank account opened in the name of the association was to be used as a"slush fund" then she cannot hide behind ignorance when money from the "slush fund" was used to buy Blewitt's house.

Your defence is now well and truly sophsitry Alan.

Alan,

'Ms Gillard told the press in August: "the purpose of this association was to support the re-election of union officials who would run a campaign saying that they wanted re-election because they were committed to reforming workplaces in a certain way, to increasing occupational health and safety, to improving the conditions of members of the union …"'

yes and we know that was said some years after the events Alan and more importantly had never been said before.

What she said to Slater and Gordon in their contemporaneous record and what was written in her hand on the application to set up the association carry much more weight.

She still denies any knowledge of the workings of the association.

Alan did any of your slush funds carry the letters AWU in their Association titles or bank accounts names?

Pray tell me why they didn't?

That's right it would misrepresent and in WA that's illegal. Knowingly doing so in cases such as this current fiasco is punishable with up to 3 years jail in WA.

Alan

It wasn't the Workplace Reform Association it was

Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association.

Perhaps your quite remarkable defence here could be included in the following proposed enquiry:

http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2012/11/30/independent-judicial-inquiry-australian-workers-union-workplace-reform

Alan,

Development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces.

Re-election of officers to work to achieve safe workplaces.

Re-Election of officers achieving safer workplaces.

Which would be most accurate?

Lol this is getting quite amusing.

Greetings all.

@Loudmouth, re: “if the actual purposes of an entity are quite different from what they purported to be in the documents setting it up, then there may have been a crime committed in the eyes of the statutory body overseeing such entities.”

Perhaps so, Joe. But there is no evidence of any flaw in the documentation, is there? The evidence strongly supports the accuracy of the application form.

Answers to your three specific questions then, Joe, on the available evidence would seem to be No, No and No.

@cohenite, re: "Alan continues to ignore the Elephant in the room; if the PM was referring to the bank account as a "slush fund" she “must have had intimate knowledge of her lover's financial arrangements.”

No, not at all, Anthony.

General life experience suggests people in intimate relationships frequently avoid discussing work matters in their private times together. Especially this seems so when they work in related fields.

Certainly, it would be highly unlikely and extremely unwise for anyone engaging in dodgy dealings to reveal these to a lover.

(And no, Shadow Minister, I have no formal training in psychology.)

Compellingly, we have the consistent testimony of both Gillard and Wilson that he, Wilson, had not revealed anything about the nature of the funding of the house to her.

Scrawny elephant, Anthony.

@imajulianutter, re: "What she said to Slater and Gordon in their contemporaneous record and what was written in her hand on the application to set up the association carry much more weight".

Correct, Keith. These are quite consistent with each other and with subsequent statements by Gillard, Wilson, Peter Gordon and others.

Re “She still denies any knowledge of the workings of the association.”

Correct also, Keith. And the evidence supports her assertions here. Almost a year elapsed between incorporating the association and the house purchase.

Gillard was involved in setting up the association in early 1992. She attended the auction in early 1993, as is normal for a couple in a relationship. There is no evidence that she had any other involvement, is there?

Cheers, AA

"General life experience suggests people in intimate relationships frequently avoid discussing work matters in their private times together. Especially this seems so when they work in related fields.

Certainly, it would be highly unlikely and extremely unwise for anyone engaging in dodgy dealings to reveal these to a lover."

That's quite amusing Alan; decades of legal work, especially in Family Law tells me the complete opposite.

In any event Gillard knew the "slush fund" was used to buy Wilson's property without Wilson whispering sweet nothings in her ear. That contradicts both 'purposes' of the association and bank account[s].

I think it's better if I don't take you seriously.

AA,

The verbal gymnastics you need to be an apologist for Juliar are extraordinary, especially given the flimsiness of the evidence on which you convict Abbott, Jones, Murdoch etc.

As far as the intention to mislead is concerned, there was nothing stopping the establishment of a legal entity titled "Wilson and Blewitt re election association", which would have been completely above board. The use of the AWU name, and workplace reform association, was completely unnecessary if it was an election slush fund, and unless Juliar is a complete idiot, this must have occurred to her. The misleading name was fundamental to it being used for fraud.

Company procedures are not criminal Acts, but are put in place to protect the management / partners, and with the requirement to open a file on work done, the more the senior the person, the greater the liability the company faces in the case of a misstep, and the more important the requirement to have a file open for scrutiny by the other partners, even for pro bono work. I used "forgot" to open a file sarcastically. Because of the obvious conflicts of interest Juliar had every intention of not opening a file for scrutiny by her partners.

The excuses being proffered for her complete ignorance would require her to be moronically stupid / incompetent, which I doubt are attributes required of partners in law firms.

Alan what she told Gordon and Slater was not consistant with the stated objectives of the Association.

Besides just saying it is consistent you should show us that slush fund for re-election of association's members is consistant with Development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces.

Alan you made statements that showed Gillard must have known of the workings of the association.

You've backflipped on that now but haven't withdrawn your original argument. That's consistent backflipping behaviour on your part.

Now you are claiming She knew nothing and set up a legitimate association.

'There is no evidence that she had any other involvement, is there?'

Yes.

If she set up the AWU Workplace Reform Association for Development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces.

Whyever did she use the term 'Slush Fund'.

Hi Alan,

I don't quite know what you mean by "any flaw in the documentation". Of course there wouldn't be any 'flaws' in the documentation presented to the relevant authority, that's not the point.

A more important point would be whether the purposes as spelt out in the documentation - I presume you mean the articles and memorandum of association - were logically consistent with the 'real' aims of the Association in the first instance (to get two union people fre-elecgted, ather than any others),

AND in the second,

whether those purported aims, of promoting workplace safety, could somehow be squared with the purchase of a house in the name of an 'associate' of her boyfriend's.

After all, Julia did not wash her hands of any involvement once the papers had been lodged - she was involved in the purchase of that house for her boyfriend. and as Cohenite suggests delicately, they must have talked about something in their post-coital moments, people do.

And through all of this, Julia was a partner in a firm whose major client was the AWU, her boyfriend's employer. I'm rusty on Commercial Law but I do recall that there is something in the Law of Partnerships about full disclosure between partners, which might have required at least the setting-up of relevant files, not to mention conferring with more senior partners on potentially dodgy issues, especially those partners who may have been working for and with the AWU for decades.

This tale has a lot of legs yet :)

Joe

Julia Gillard won't answer the questions.Julia Gillard used her power to silence the media and get Michael Smith sacked.

Julia Gillard should be facing a criminal investigation but no senior police official will put their reputation/career on the line for fear of re-criminations.

When high profile people face criminal charges the elites close ranks for fear of us investigating their criminal activities.The pressure to stop this investigation came from powers far greater than the Labor Party.ie if the puppets are rotten to the core so must be their puppeteers.

Hello all,

@cohenite, re: “That contradicts both 'purposes' of the association and bank account[s].”

No. Why, Anthony? The bank accounts were to facilitate funds in and out, including for long-term investments, such as property. No?

@Shadow Minister, re: “there was nothing stopping the establishment of a legal entity titled ‘Wilson and Blewitt re election association’."

Sure. But why did Wilson and Blewitt want to be elected? What was their platform? If it was workplace reform – which seems the case – then equally there was nothing stopping the title “Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association”, was there?

@imajulianutter, re: “Whyever did she use the term 'Slush Fund'.”

It’s a term Aussies commonly use for bank accounts for contingencies, or for miscellaneous, or for a rainy day.

Our church has what we call a slush fund, our cricket club has a slush fund and we have one in our family. It's a common slang expression in several countries.

Keith, it seems you are still confused as to what Gillard referred to with that term. It was the bank account(s). It was NOT the association Gillard helped incorporate. This is a significant distinction.

@Loudmouth, re: “whether those purported aims, of promoting workplace safety could somehow be squared with the purchase of a house in the name of an 'associate' of her boyfriend's.”

Those questions seem to relate to the performance of the conveyancing paralegal. That was not Ms Gillard, was it?

Re: “After all, Julia did not wash her hands of any involvement once the papers had been lodged - she was involved in the purchase of that house for her boyfriend.”

What involvement? Besides being at the auction? Any evidence? Pretty sure that’s not true, Joe.

Re: “they must have talked about something in their post-coital moments ...”

And you know this how, Joe ..?

@Arjay. No, Michael Smith was sacked for the same reason Glenn Milne was sacked and Larry Pickering can’t find paid work. They are nutters.

Cheers, AA

So, now you're saying Blewitt and Wilson did nothing wrong and everything the association was used for was above board?

Bank accounts, like associations, do not do anything illegal in themselves; but when their purpose is misrepresented as the PM did when she admitted it was a "slush fund", and when the funds moving in and out of them are not accounted for then they become part of a potential wrongdoing.

I don't recall any mention of "long-term investments" before; how does that tally with the non-profit status of the association? Were taxes paid on the sale of the house? What happened to those proceeds? Who did the conveyancing for that? Typical of the high and mighty to blame the lowly conveyancer and not the supervising solicitor.

It's a cesspit really and money properly belonging to union members has, as usual, gone down the gullets of someone else.

Good on you for defending it Alan.

And did that 'paralegal' need to refer to any file, any documents, in relation to the purchase of the house, and did he/she either need access to an existing file, or to create one, in order to place any documentation arising from the purchase of that house. And did Julia have anything to do with instructing that paralegal in relation to the purchase of a house with funds from an association that she had helped to set up ? But whether she did or not, there would be a paper trail in relation to the work done by that paralegal, billed hours, etc., and among other things, a file.

Did it get mislaid ?

A 'slush fund' containing hundreds of thousands of dollars, gained who-knows-how, would do wonders for some struggling church fund, or junior lacrosse club.

Or a genuine workplace safety reform association. Pity that didn't get off the ground.

AA,

Your comment "then equally there was nothing stopping the title “Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association”, was there?"

Yes the fact that the fund had nothing to do with work place reform and was an election fund made it illegal. The connection that if elected the officials would pursue safety at work (like all the others want to remove safety at work) is so tenuous as to be completely misleading.

This is why Juliar was effectively fired.

It is also similar to her BS that she never really promised that there would be no carbon tax, and that the carbon tax was not actually a carbon tax.

It is time for her to go.

Such a lot of comments about our Julia. What a waste of space she is!

Meanwhile, she is big-noting herself at COAG and coming up with all kinds of unfunded schemes that might see the light of day in a few years or 2018 or never.

Australia has seen some dodgy Prime Ministers but our Julia takes the cake. From the moment she shafted Kevin, we have seen what 'lust for power' does to a woman.

The 'fairer sex' has been sold down the river by Julia and will never recover.

Good morning,

@cohenite, re: “So, now you're saying Blewitt and Wilson did nothing wrong”

No, not at all.

Re: “Bank accounts, like associations, do not do anything illegal in themselves”

Correct. A point some of the internet nutjobs have missed.

Re: “when their purpose is misrepresented as the PM did when she admitted it was a "slush fund"…”

Anthony, it seems you are continuing to read into Gillard’s use of “slush fund” meaning that’s just not there.

Might be useful to see what Wikipedia says about the expression. Seems there are three common interpretations:

A. colloquially, an auxiliary account or a reserve fund.

B. a fund with connotations of illegality, illegitimacy, or secrecy.

C. in accounting, a general ledger account in which transactions can be posted to "loose" monies by debits and credits cancelling each other out.

In pretty much all usage I and others make routinely, the meaning is A. Pretty sure from context and information on the record, Gillard also meant A. Possibly C.

It seems fairly clear the internet nutjobs have leapt gleefully to the conclusion she meant B.

Is this your assumption also, Anthony?

Re: “Typical of the high and mighty to blame the lowly conveyancer and not the supervising solicitor.”

No-one is blaming anyone, Anthony. Just looking for information in the right place.

@Loudmouth: Re “did Julia have anything to do with instructing that paralegal in relation to the purchase of a house with funds from an association that she had helped to set up?”

The answer seems to be No, Joe. Her role was in getting the association incorporated a year earlier, and in arranging a power of attorney prior to the house purchase. All parties who have spoken about this on the record seem agreed that was all.

“Did it [a file] get mislaid ?” Perhaps. The standard period for retaining closed conveyancing files varies according to jurisdiction. It is usually around 12 years. The house was bought 19 years ago.

Re: “Or a genuine workplace safety reform association. Pity that didn't get off the ground.”

Yes, Joe. I agree.

Cheers, AA

AA,

So your defence of Juliar is based on her being a complete idiot?

Alan,

If a paralegal from Slater & Gordon handled the sale of the house that was purchased with funds from the charitable association that Julia Gillard helped to set up, would he/she have had to record hours spent ? Would he/she have to set up a file, and if so, under what headings ? And wouldn't he/she be expected to report to someone in Slater & Gordon, in the usual chain of command sort of thing ? i.e. a paper trail ?

Perhaps in your church and charitable work, you are accustomed to handling, say, the purchase of a house in the name of your charitable association, with funds - hundreds of thousands - that came from who knows where ? And perhaps you would never bother to set up anything like a file on it - any paperwork that comes, you would just throw away ?

Imagine you had hired a lawyer to attend the auction of this house, after advising on how to set up your charitable association, someone who you were living with. Then you move into this house, sometimes sharing it with your lawyer-friend.

Maybe this happens all the time in your universe - it's nothing for a chess club, or a junior lacrosse club, to amass hundreds of thousands of dollars, of mysterious provenance, with which the head of your chess club or lacrosse club purchases a house, in which he/she then lives.

What would constitute corruption, in your book, if not this ?

Cheers,

Joe

Alan

Julia used the term slush fund in a formal interview with her senior partners. It wasn't in some informal chit chat about the local church cake stall or cricket club booze up or even a discussion about home finances.

It was in a discussion about the activites of her client, Slater and Gordon's client and the finances of one of Australias major unions.

Can't you understand it is utterly irrelevant whether Julia was talking about a bank account of an Association or the Association. She said she hadn't any knowledge of the workings (Any of the workings) of the Association.

You now seem intent on claiming Julia didn't know anything at all about the Association or it's accounts apart of advising on it's set up and yet you cannot explain why she termed part of the associations activities a 'slush fund'. I repeat Gillard has claimed she didn't know of any of it's activities. You backflipped to agree with that.
Don't you see the idiocy of your position?
What's wrong with you?

Hello again,

@Shadow Minister, re: “the fact that the fund had nothing to do with workplace reform and was an election fund made it illegal.”

No, you are still confusing the association with the fund. They are not the same. The association was formed to get officers elected to the union on a workplace safety platform.

To achieve this, they needed funds.

There was nothing illegal in establishing either the association or the bank accounts.

Re: “This is why Juliar was effectively fired.”

No. According to all involved, she left to pursue a political career. Arguably, she has succeeded.

@Loudmouth, re: files and paper trail.

It depends on the lawyer-client relationship, Joe. I’ve bought three houses in my time. Conveyancing for the first was done gratis by the groomsman at our wedding. For the second I used a mate in Brunswick who was happy with a contra deal. The third required a notaire in France who was paid on invoice by direct deposit. The files in each case were quite different.

Have you read the transcript of the September 1995 interview, Joe? There clearly was a conveyancing file. It was tabled during the interview.

No-one claims papers were thrown away. They were there in 1995. If they are not there now, they were probably shredded as is routine for old closed files. (But who is the mysterious Leesha?)

There is no evidence of any corruption on Gillard’s part, Joe. She never lived in that house. Both Wilson and Gillard have affirmed she visited occasionally, but never moved in. Don’t believe the internet nutjobs.

@imajulianutter:

No, I don’t think I’ve changed position, Keith.

Re: Gillard “said she hadn't any knowledge of the workings of the Association.”

Correct. Probably a bit like the church account we call a slush fund. I know it’s there. But don’t know anything about what goes in and out. That’s the treasurer's responsibility.

@David G, I think you have got to the nub of this issue.

It’s not really about application forms, house auctions or contingency funds, is it?

Some people just don’t like Julia.

Cheers, AA

At least Alan is now prepared to concede that Wilson and Blewitt did something wrong.

Alan is putting the best possible gloss on the PM's activities and statements; for this intrepation to be true the PM would have had to be both a paragon and an idiot; it is simply unrealistic.

There is no distinction between the bank accounts and the association; the PM was not distinguishing between them at either her exit interview or at the press conference; however if Alan offers his slant I would expect her to pick up on it; why don't you suggest your idea to the PM about the difference between the bank account and the association Alan?

Anyway, at this stage we can say the association was misrepresented in a material particular and there is a case to answer pursuant to S. 170.

In every other issue raised, such as the house purchase and its sale Alan hasn't had much to say.

It would be interesting, given Alan's use of varied coveyancers, to know who did the conveyancing for the sale of Wilson's property; maybe the PM could shed some light on that because at the time it was sold she would have had time on her hands.

it would also be interesting to know about Wilson's other, if any, dalliances in real estate; those records stay around for along time.

AA,

One common definition of a fund is:

An organization established to administer and manage a sum of money. /an organization administering a special fund.

Given that the sole purpose of the WRA was to manage the election money, it was by definition a fund. Your linguistic gymnastics have no foundation in reality.

Juliar established the AWU WRA knowing it was a slush fund, as she said in 1995. This was at the very least unethical, and certainly contrary to the legal requirements for establishing a legal entity.

Good morning,

@cohenite, re: “There is no distinction between the bank accounts and the association”

Just nonsense. Have you ever incorporated an association or a business, Anthony? And then opened a bank account in the organisation's name? They are not the same entity, are they?

If you still can’t see this, ask a lawyer or accountant you trust to explain it.

@Shadow Minister, re: “Given that the sole purpose of the WRA was to manage the election money”

That “given” is just not true, is it, SM? All the evidence is against it.

Re: “Juliar established the AWU WRA knowing it was a slush fund”

Again, just no foundation in reality, SM.

There seem two errors – maybe not glaring errors, but errors nonetheless – in the case advanced by Julie Bishop, George Brandis, the media hacks and the internet nutjobs:

1. They claim the bank accounts are the same as the association. Just foolishly false.

2. And they assert that the purposes of the organisation were sham. Yet there is plenty of evidence – documentary and testimonial – that the stated objectives were substantially pursued by the association’s members. Even Michael Smith’s bizarre website contains such evidence.

Pretty sure, Anthony and SM, no-one will never get a barrister to go to court against Julia with “an association was set up in 1992 with several stated purposes. Some time later they opened a bank account. There is no distinction between the two.”

Indeed, one of the obvious weaknesses in the voluminous “evidence” amassed by Michael Smith is that he does not have a competent independent lawyer who agrees with him.

There are no legal problems here for Ms Gillard. A “case to answer” exists only in the minds of the internet nutjobs, one discredited Fairfax writer and the several discredited Murdoch writers.

Even the federal Opposition last week backed off claiming any illegality, didn’t they?

Political problems, perhaps. But not legal. Though even the politics appear now to be favouring the PM and damaging her critics.

We shall see if this has further to go. I doubt it.

Cheers, AA

Alan,

Something must have rubbed off from your time with the Jiminy Crickets...your performance on this thread is reminiscent of Geoff Boycott.

Off the back foot through the covers....carry on : )

Alan says:

"We shall see if this has further to go. I doubt it."

In the meantime I guess all we can do is continue talking to internet nutjobs who support the PM and her past and present no matter what.

Speaking of which Alan says:

"Just nonsense. Have you ever incorporated an association or a business, Anthony? And then opened a bank account in the organisation's name? They are not the same entity, are they?"

Alan cannot get his head around the fact that while the slush fund set up by the PM is distinct from any bank accounts subsequently set up to process the loot Wilson and Blewitt obtained, it was not the bank accounts which the PM was talking about; she was talking about the association.

Only internet nutjobs would pretend otherwise

Alan in a nutshell, let's sumarise your positions

1.

'“it is clear that registering the name of the company that is misleading with regards its purpose is an offence.”

But there is no evidence of misleading, is there?'

'Actual words: (On the AWU WRA application in Gillard's hand writing) “Development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces”.'

'... there is no evidence of any flaw in the (AWU WRA) documentation, is there? The evidence strongly supports the accuracy of the application form.'

Yet you maintain

'The(AWU WR) association was formed to get officers elected to the union on a workplace safety platform.'

Both statements are completely different? One is misleading.

Which one is misleading Alan?

2.

'None of the funds later opened by Blewitt and Wilson had anything whatsoever to do with the lawyer who helped set up the (AWU)WRA initially'

do you realise the pure logic in this argument about bank accounts and the AWU WR association implies this AWU WR association was set up without an intent to open a bank account?

Do you really believe Gillard thinks the AWU WR association had no intention of setting up a bank account?


3.

'Ms Gillard was not referring to the association as a slush fund. She was referring to one of the bank accounts later used by the association for allegedly dodgy deeds.'

'...it seems you are still confused as to what Gillard referred to with that term.(Slush Fund) It was the bank account(s). It was NOT the association Gillard helped incorporate.

Yet you agree

'Re “She still denies any knowledge of the workings of the association.”

Correct ...'

Alan given that the accounts would constitue the workings of the AWU WRA how did Gillard both know and not know about the workings of the AWU WR association?

And you dare call others nutjobs...

Alan, like your work mate.

"Alan, like your work mate."

Yes Alan is one of the best fantasy commentators on the internet; an internet fantasist as it were.

Don't forget the nut-jobs that try and prove Juliar's innocence by redefining the English definition of fund.

In spite of all the protestations it looks as though trust in Juliar and labor has plummeted again.

I think that coming up to the elections we will see lots more of Thomson, Obeid, Williamson, Juliar, and other ALP crooks.

32% and falling