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