Here's Shadow Minister's pin-up boy and his adventures in Slush Fun[d]land.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/22/1061529330032.html

"Obviously in hindsight I shouldn't have done it. But if I had my time again and it was necessary to make an alliance with some pretty unusual people to stop a very serious threat to the social cohesion of the country,well, I would do it. I mean, how else were we going to stop One Nation at the time?"

(Of course, the reality was that the "serious threat" was to the Liberal Party's voter base)

Dodge-a-rama!

“Once again - what law has Gillard broken?”

Possible laws contravened by the proven actions and statements of the PM:

1 Sections 8 and 43 of Western Australia’s Associations Incorporation Act 1987

2 Sections 170 and 409 of the Western Australian Criminal Code 1913

3 Section 83A of the Victorian Crimes Act

Contrary to the astounding defences posted here and elsewhere about the PM there are no shortages of possible offences which her PROVEN acts and statements would satisfy.

The only other defence posted is that because Abbott set up a slush fund to finance getting rid of Hansen the PM should not be held accountable; this is a spurious point; Abbott contravened no relevant laws; or, at least, the assiduous efforts of the PM’s defenders have uncovered none; so, in actual fact, the complaint is based on a dislike of Abbott and is, therefore, entirely political.

What this means is that the defenders of the PM care nothing about the law or accountability; their concern is that their side of politics should be exempt from the operation of the law. In short they subscribe to Richardson’s adage of “whatever it takes”.

The PM would be proud.

Hi Cohenite,

Can you see how this looks to those seriously trying to understand this issue?

You have just said in your last post, “Possible laws contravened by …”

Possible laws? Surely it is no great party trick to list laws someone may “possibly” have broken. Critics of Tony Abbott could do that with his anti-Pauline Hanson slush fund. Critics of Julie Bishop could do that with her previous career litigating asbestos sufferers until they died. Critics of John Howard could do that with his dealings in the Honan matter. Critics of Howard Government ministers could do that with the overseas aid money they stole to bribe Saddam Hussein.

Finding “possible” laws contravened is easy-peasy. The critical task is to find an actual law broken. For this you need actual evidence.

The key problem with the article seems to be the author’s confusing the association started by Wilson and Blewitt with the “slush fund”.

A “fund” is an account with a bank or other financial institution into which monies are placed for later disbursement, usually by cheque. There was at least one bank account used by the association in question after it had been incorporated.

But an incorporated association is a different entity from its bank accounts. The former is legally constituted by a commissioner after all legal requirements are met. The latter are opened by a financial institution on application by eligible account holders.

What Ms Gillard referred to in her discussions within Slater and Gordon as a “slush fund” was a bank account, not the association.

Does this make sense? Perhaps if the author has an accountant or a lawyer, he or she may be able to explain the technical difference.

Because it’s fairly important. This is the confusion in the mind of the author that renders most of his argument nonsensical.

The other flaws in the author’s position and the subsequent defence of the article have been well observed by Rhrosty, Mally, Wantok, 579, Poirot, Foyle, JohnBennetts, EmperorJulian and PaulR, especially Foyle.

To Shadow Minister: It's interesting you use the term Juliar - a term coined by Alan Jones, the well-known misogynist and anti-female radio announcer. Only supporters of Jones' anti-female tirades (ask Amanda Vanstone) would be low enough to copy his lines - but you probably also support his taking of hidden payments in return for favourable comments. (Perhaps Labor should offer to pay Jones to show logic and reason?)

You give your motives away by using this term.

Perhaps someone else could provide a real answer to the basic question: what laws has Gillard broken and how do you reconcile this with Tony Abbott's anit-Hanson slush fund and Howard's taxpayer funded bailout of his brother?

Politically, what's intersting is how little the public regard the latest Abbott/Bishop attacks on Gillard. I think most regard it as another Godwin Grech moment. Indicative too when a Coalition MP asked Abbott last Friday - when are we going to drop this line of attack

Well, go ahead Alan, list the possible laws contravened by your hit list of conservatives.

I've given you 'actual' laws which the PM has possibly broken. The use of the word "possibly" here is because the presumption of innocence and due process must apply even if someone has been charged.

And "actual evidence" has been listed, particularly the PM's admission that she knew the declared purpose of the application for association was different from what SHE said was the 'real' purpose.

As has also been shown, that 'real' purpose is contradicted by real evidence in the form of the cheque drawn on association's bank account.

But like the animals in Animal farm good little citizens like you will continue to deny what is before your eyes.

Your attempt to confuse the association with the various bank accounts or "funds" is pathetic. In respect of the association the Commissioner will register any application after he has been satisfied of the bona fides of the proposed association. In this case he was satisfied by the PM's application and the follow up letter which the PM has acknowledged writing but which has mysteriously disappeared. If misrepresentations are made to the Commissioner and he acts on them that is the fault of the misrepresenter, in this case the PM. But then of course we know in your moral universe misrepresenting the purpose of the association is not lying.

It is the PM herself who used the expression "slush fund", and the term was not separate from the association in her explanations to S&G.

In respect of the actual bank accounts; it appears there were 3; money relating to the Victorian scam did not go to the association account, but went instead to the AWU Members Welfare Association no 1 account; the WA scam, where money was extracted from Thiess, went into the association account, as did, apparently the money raised from the Boulder Widows and Orphans fund.

Care to apply your moral blowtorch to that?

Something to remember is the laws of the day years ago may have amendments now. So those amendments have to be disregarded.
No one has come up with proof, so all it is,is reading something between the lines. Which does not amount to proof.