Cohenite stated;
"It is incontrovertible that Gillard knowingly put the incorrect purpose on the application".

The wrong purpose may be in the hand writing of Julia Gillard but that does not mean she knowingly wrote an incorrect purpose. As a lawyer she would have asked her client, "What is the purpose of the association?" and written down the client's answer. One of the applicants signed the application as true and correct, not Julia Gillard. The future PM witnessed that oath.

People conveniently ignore the time difference between statements. The comment by the future PM when she described the fund as a slush fund was made about three years after the association was established. She stated what the associations accounts had become, not what the applicants had claimed was intended for the association.

The fact that people who wished to establish an association were members of a union does not prevent them from doing so, even in the association was in respect to some aspects of the work of union members. Members of a union are entitled to act independent of the union and for the assocition as registeredare only constrained to the rules of the union while working their prescribed hours for their workplace.
The WA commissioner accepted the name of the association.

I was finishing the editing of my last comment when the item disappeared. I may have hit a wrong button.

The last paragraph is the main problem and should have read as follows:.
The fact that people who wished to establish an association were members of a union does not prevent them from doing so, even in the association was in respect to some aspects of the work or workplaces of union members.

Members of a union are entitled to act independent of the union and, for the association as registered, are only constrained by the rules of the union to not acting against the interests of the union. I doubt if the rules and aims of the new association disclose any intent to do so.

How the association was operated after being formed and registered is another matter but then the association was not under the control or direction of Julia Gillard at any time.

The WA commissioner accepted the name of the association.

Foyle,

how do you reconcile

'The comment by the future PM when she described the fund as a slush fund was made about three years after the association was established. She stated what the associations accounts had become, not what the applicants had claimed was intended for the association.'

And Gillard's oft stated claim she had no knowledge of the workings of the association?

Those statements are contradictory. One is a lie. Which one do you think is a lie ... or are both lies?

Gillard's problem is that she spilt her guts and she keeps on and on and on doing that. With each new defence she hangs herself higher and higher.

@imajulianutter:

The PM is entitled, as are all of us, to the presumption of innocence. That is not conditional. It is not up to the likes of imajulianutter or me, armed with no allegation and partial knowledge of the facts, to determine guilt.

Indeed, there is no charge - although ima(etc) has suggested a few charges for which, in his or her estimation, the PM has already been charged, tried and found guilty. Well, she has not been charged or tried and is certainly currently not guilty.

Much as one side of this discussion would have it otherwise, Julia has no case to answer, and therefore she is only in an imaginary bind. Bigots choose to decide that failure to answer an imaginery non-charge is proof of guilt. How absurd!

If ima(etc) would but provide a true name and address instead of hiding behind a veil of anonymity like a weakling, then perhaps a charge could be laid... by Julia. The charge could well be one of defamation.

However, I suspect that there are far jucier targets available, should the PM choose to aim for a new house, pool or retirement fund. Who knows? After the next election, she may well find herself with time and incentive to chase some of those who have defamed her. There is plenty of time.

geoffreykelley: sorry to disappoint you, but I was referring to the original article, which has yet to substantiate anything illegal that Gillard has done.

Just as Abbott did nothing illegal when, as Michelle Grattan pointed out, he set up the anti-Hanson slush fund and refused to say who donated money to the cause, nor has Gillard done anything wrong from what I can see.

Once again - what law has Gillard broken?

If you're worried about unethical behaviour, what do you say about Abbott telling us not to believe anthing he says, and only to believe what he puts in writing. What about Howard bailing his brother out with taxpayer funds and then closing the loophole so no other Australian could be bailed out in the same way. Howard never spent two hours in front of the media explainin himself as Gillard has done.

Don't think this is about ethics, or corruption. The Liberals have a dirt file on Gillard - we saw that file on Channel Nine last week. This is about getting rid of someone who is not part of the Old Boys Network.

Robert LePage

"I wonder where you get the quaint idea that coalition members are crime free?"

I never did nor implied so. This is either a fabrication by you, or a sign that you can't read.

What I am saying is that the number of Labor MPs committing criminal and corrupt acts far exceeds those from the coalition. That you had to cite an assault case from 1967 that resulted in a $50 fine proves my point. I can match that with your ex Labor president, sitting MP and a raft of NSW ex labor MPs facing serious corruption charges for $millions.

JohnBennetts

Firstly the presumption of innocence exists only in the criminal court.
Secondly, the main charge against the PM is that she acted unprofessionally and unethically, for which there is ample documented evidence.
Finally, her refusal to answer the main questions, her refusal to disclose anything, and her changing story is not the behaviour of someone whose hands are clean.

PaulR,

Slush funds in themselves are often called contingency funds, and are not in themselves out of the ordinary. The issue with Juliar's slush fund is not that it was a slush fund, but that it was incorporated as a separate legal entity with a title that contrary to the corporations act deliberately implied that it was an off shoot of the AWU, and that its purpose was work place reform. At the time Juliar clearly knew that neither was true.

Furthermore Juliar as a partner knew that the AWU was a major client, and that using the AWU name without permission was a fundamental breach of conflict which forced G&S to give up the AWU as a client.

If Juliar had called it an "election contribution fund" it would have complied with the legal and ethical requirements, and would have made it difficult to use to commit fraud.