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