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