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.