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'.