Home > Current Affairs, Politics - Domestic, Politics - International, The EYE-BALL HGZ [Harry's Growl Zone] > EYE-BALL’s Harry’ Growl on – The Dogs have their BONE – Gillard kicked them out the house –

EYE-BALL’s Harry’ Growl on – The Dogs have their BONE – Gillard kicked them out the house –

November 27, 2012
Latest ‘Harry’s Growl’ Posts:

– 23rd Nov – The ALP and Obeid Train Wreck  – is it meant to distract from Gillard & the AWU Scandal –

– 22nd Nov – Gunfights at the OK Corral: Misandry v Misogyny – GILLARD v Ralph BLEWITT – GILLARD v Hedley THOMAS – GILLARD v Mike SMITH – GILLARD v Larry PICKERING – GILLARD v ALP Caucus – GILLARD v All Australians …

– 13th Nov – The Day the heavens began to cave in – – Obeid and his entourage to bring it all down … –

– 10th Nov – The 2012 US Presidential Election Part II – The Fallout – the GOP beating up on itself –

– 8th Nov – The 2012 US Presidential Election Part I – what does it really mean —

7th Nov – Bob Carr … Foreign Minister – as profiled by “The Australian’s” Ross Fitzgerald –

– 29th Oct – The Most Irrelevant of all Irrelevancy – Independents – Slipper, Thompson, Windsor, Oakeshott, Katter & Wilkie – hanging on to office rather than face the electorate –

– 27th Oct – Julia Gillard does not understand Hypocrisy – ALP Powerbrokers dump Penny Wong – makes Gillard look foolish over her ‘sexism’ claims –

– 27th Oct – Julia Gillard an assassin best dressed in Black – Maxine McKew’s – “Tales from the Political Trenches”-

– 26th Oct – The Turkey Basted Gillard – and “The Australian’s” Hedley Thomas’s – recipe for Slow Roasting a Prime Minister –

– 26th Oct – Maxine McKew’s story – Tales from the Political Trenches –

– 22nd Oct – Gillard stands atop her own Abyss – Will she jump or wait to be pushed –

– 19th Oct – Oddball News Wrap – ‘Reel 6′: News Updates from Around the World –

– 17th Oct – Craig Thompson – there are no words to describe this GRUB … –

– 16th Oct – Hedley Thomas is back – and Gillard knee’s begin to tremble ..

– 9th Oct – Gillard has lost it – Turns Parliament into a sledge-fest over sexism –

– 6th Oct – Poor – Poor – Peter Slipper – The Pumpkin Eater cries crocodile tears in court –

– 5th Oct – The US Presidential Debate …!

– 4th Oct – I just want to “GROWL” at the World!

– 2nd Oct – PM Julia Gillard – Someone most Australians are ashamed of! –

To see more EYE-BALL Harry’s Growl posts:
click here …

– The Dogs have their BONE –
– Gillard’s kicked them out the house –
| Author: EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl | 27th Nov 2012 |
What a day! … Australian Journalism had their collective arse’s booted out of the building.

Gillard showed again just how much contempt she has for the ‘media horde’ at large.  She treated them as as fools being fed by fools.  Not one in attendance did Australian Journalism proud yesterday … none of those in attendance are worth a cracker or be considered the elite of their profession.

The Prime Ministers Press Conference – 26th Nov 2012:

The ABC’s Chris Ulman gave himself a pass mark when he picked up that Gillard did not answer the question of the witnessing of the ‘Power of Attorney’ document by a previous questioner.

He asked the same question on the ‘Power of Attorney’ signing – and again drew the same response from Gillard – audio replays of these questions and responses are provided below –

To watch a full replay of the Press Conference interview – click link here – this ABC site gives a short version and a long version …

Listening to Gillard repeat over, and over again her memory that she had signed/witnessed – ‘thousands, and thousands and thousands’ … the question passed through my mind that this is one document you would never forget signing if it was illegal.   Gillard is a professional politician and she is very adept at avoiding any question she does not want to give a direct response to.   This was one of those occasions.

The ‘SKY News’ Paul Kelly interview:

There has been two previous occasions in the one-on-one format interview since Gillard became Prime Minister, both times Gillard seemed to lose control of the interview.   In fact these are the only times she has given the one-on-one interview from memory [sic].

Firstly do you remember the ‘Sky News‘ interview with Gillard and Paul Kelly on the 19th Aug ’12 – see clip below:

The ‘4 Corners’ interview:

Secondly – Gillard has only given one other one-on-one interview since becoming PM – it was when she was questioned on the Rudd removal about her staff preparing a speech well in advance of the midnight coup to replace Rudd – that was ‘4 Corners‘ earlier in 2012 – see clip below:

If one was to review these one-on-one type interviews – Gillard became very defensive when questioned on known facts and the question went to her knowledge on the matter. Her response in both the above examples was to do her best to avoid answering the question.

This has become her trademark strategy and why she no longer gives one-on-one interviews to journalists who might be unfriendly.

The David Speers Interview – 2009

Now compare Gillards demeanour and comments as Deputy Prime Minister when she spoke with David Speers of Sky News interview in 2009. Measure the performance she offers during these interviews with the stance she took yesterday. In 2009 she wanted to be Prime Minister and was selling herself – in 2012 she is the Prime Minister and you can all go to hell …

David Speers Interview Part 1 – uploaded 10th June 2009

David Speers Interview Part 2 – uploaded 10th June 2009

David Speers Interview Part 3 – uploaded 10th June 2009

One wonders if they are the same person – she has the ability to change her tone to suit the mood – be it bereavement messages in the House, or her misogyny speech where it was all fire and brimstone.

In another time we might consider her bravado something something we could all be proud of and have respect for.   Sadly – the history of this AWU scandal will never allow that to ever happen – all because past events remain unexplained and still drift with the toxic sludge all around her and those who helped cover it all up.

The AWU Scandal:

Make no mistake – the AWU scandal is a big deal and no matter how much Gillard denies and refuses to answer the questions that will assist and help clear the ‘smear’, she can expect all of those pursuing this scandal to continue their investigations and probing unabashed, and for as long as she thinks she is a fit and proper person to serve as our Prime Minister.

Nobody in the ‘media horde’ serving and stationed to Parliament House is prepared to attack this PM – she is too commanding and the sexist card is always at play and around.

Hedley Thomas is a journalist of extreme creditability and his pursuit has been relentless, yet the PM discredits him and discards him, she will not take his calls or grant him an interview to allow him to put his questions directly.   In fact she no longer gives anyone a one-on-one interview anymore – not to this bloggers knowledge anyway.

What she does do is call a press conference disguised as a policy launch, but with an agenda to expand the interview on matters she wants to talk about.  The media horde respond to her demands and Gillard holds sway directing who ask’s the questions, and answering them in whatever way and order she wants.

This dictatorial platform manner annoyed many at  first and now it is just accepted.  Nobody interrupts her – or if they do they’re shut down because she has the microphone. If you do pursue the interjections you don’t get the chance of another question, and are dropped of the invite list next time.

It has become what it is because Journalist can only respond to their editors requests and what information they have on hand, and above all they want to keep their jobs. Many are more concerned with lipstick and makeup, with camera angles and other personalised matters to make sure they look good on camera. It is hardly ever about the substance of the journalist’s questions – it is about prop questions being fed and then asking that question when called upon.  It’s a staged managed event and it is not only Gillard that uses this tactic, all politicians do it – or at least try to.

The Oppositions Strategy:

The Press Conference yesterday completely destroyed the Opposition’s planned strategy for Question Time.  The press conference literally finished just minutes before Questions Time commenced.

The Opposition collectively were disciplined in their rowdiness – yet looked like shags on a rock when there planned strategy had been completely out-maneuvered by the press conference.

Julie Bishop was sent into bat – and her questions were flea bites at best and easily squashed.  Albanese only had to get up once to offer protection for his PM.   If this is the best the Opposition can do – they are in worse shape that the ALP … it is time for Abbott to come out of hiding over the hurtful misogyny claims and defend himself and all men … it’s time for him to attack Gillard as opposed to mixed words on this AWU scandal that go to his own creditability as the alternative PM.

The BONE that is being chewed:

Gillard can now claim she has offered up two ‘shop till you drop’ news conference on the AWU scandal and at which nobody has dinted her ‘rhino’ skin.

What have we actually learnt from Gillard about her AWU involvement – she gave some legal advice, she left S&G of her own accord under a cloud about her professional conduct,  and a whole bunch of money was stripped from AWU members.   Where is the crime, where is the wrong doing and Gillard is doing what all criminals do – daring anybody to prove she has done something wrong.  He language on this is quite clear – it is not about humility and wanting to show her willingness to cooperate – she stands defiant and challenges all her accusers to make a complaint, made an allegation.

Yet with defamation options available to her – she refuses to use the courts for that protection.  Gillard knows that she will become more exposed if she does.   Threatening the court action as she has done with News Ltd over minor misprints – is not the same as a lawsuit claiming that what has been printed is inaccurate and seeking damages for the defamation.

Gillard fears the witness-box … she has much to lose and Gillard fears her involvement will become more exposed.  She has many to protect in this matter.

This ‘bone’ that Gillard has left for lesser people to chew on gives the taste being bare and unfruitful … yet new meat, new flavour has been found by Hedley Thomas and others during these past months.

Mike Smith by far the man with the most uncovered evidence and best knowledge of all the collective the AWU fraud represents, has been relentless in his pursuit of Gillard since he lost his 2UE broadcast position late last year over the publication he wanted to do on this story.

Larry Pickering has also bought his brand of satire and cartoon levity to the story – as has Shane Dowling’s – Kangaroo Cour of Australia, and Andrew Bolt’s – ‘Bolt Report’.

Gillard claims ‘sexist misogynist nutjobs’ are the ones pursuing her – in fact none of those tarred with that brush hate women – in fact there is a move to have the dictionary meaning of the word ‘misogyny’ altered to comply with the terms of use in how the PM used the word in Parliament against Tony Abbott.

What weakness … it was the wrong work and used for particular effect and it worked as the 3+ million YouTube hits around the world confirmed.   Gillard grows in her defiance and with good reason.

Now with the Ian Cambridge diaries, Hedley Thomas has a creditable time-line of evidence.   Yet Ian Cambridge has a credibility issues as well – how was his appointment to the Industrial Commission in 1996 arranged?  Why did he desert the AWU when it was he and Bob Kernohan pursuing a Royal Commission?

So from what ever corner the evidence is coming from, someone will come forward and provide the necessary ‘smoking-gun’ that will turn this matter on its head.   The Nixon/Watergate scandal took some three years before it reached the top.   In this matter there has been several attempts but the Unions have be able to quash the matter – i.e. bashing and threatening Bob Kernohan in the 90’s …

Whoever owns a past connected to the evidence of this AWU scandal has more than a vested interest in this whole matter just going away.   Powerful forces are at work here.

Nick Styant-Browne’s – an ex partner of S&G and someone with physical evidence of Gillard’s ‘record of interview’, and other S&G firm business provided Thomas with this new information.  Styant-Browne continued that feed with last weeks release of a document implying that Gillard knew about the Kerr St property purchase some 2 years before she has previously admitted.    Gillard has again claimed memory issues as her defence.

The most interesting of all confirming evidence, the S&G file that could clear Gillard, or sink both her and S&G has gone mission.   Law Society Victoria must be close to initiating an enquiry of their own into the behaviour of senior S&G Partners.

When can a Liar be called a Liar:

Let it be made clear – Gillard is someone with a very chequered past –

  • she has character judgement flaws – i.e. her relationship with Bruce Wilson,
  • she has ethical flaws – she states that she has – ‘done nothing wrong’ – when the record of evidence and history proves she was involved/associated with a serious Union fraud – a fraud that has never been prosecuted because she, and her Law Firm helped cover up the crime to protect all involved,
  • she has a morality flaw – she has pursued and become involved in sexual relationships with married men with families, she sees nothing wrong with these relationships and serves as the PM in a defacto relationship – the first leader of this Nation to have done so, and possibly the first International Leader of our contemporary neighbours to have done so.  She also has ex lovers serving in her Ministry,
  • she has a pathological denial flaw, a mental blockage/scarring preventing her involvement in the AWU fraud from being revisited.  Despite all the physical evidence disclosed about the AWU fraud – Gillard cannot, or will not accept her own complicity,  or that she was involved with something that resulted in a major fraud.  Her continued denial of any association or involvement is all about her own self-preservation – be it sub-consciously or consciously.

In her news conference responses yesterday – where she was able to recount in specific detail the number of times this matter has been investigated, and re-investigated with timelines, and raised over the last 17 years,  something her memory was able to recall without hesitation,  offers a sure indication to the fact that she does have memory surrounding this issue.

Given the number of times she has been forced to revisit this matter – all that has been revealed is that she has got better at the denial, and the selling of her memory loss into crucial areas where she has a case to answer.

When some one has a memory loss as Gillard claims over such a defining moment in her life –  the ‘loss of memory’ can be caused by an emotional scarring over what professionals would call an ‘event’ in someones past.

In Gillards case – this ‘event’ being the prospect of the total loss of her career, the reality of a breakup of a relationship she was fully invested in, and then to see before her the developing storm in the what the AWU scandal represents – there is no doubt that memory of her involvement has been sub-consciously blocked.

Is that mitigating circumstances to give her a pass mark over her involvement?  The flat answer NO.  Plenty of people suffer such ‘events’ – yet none have gone on to become a Prime Minister.    Of course, the alternative might be that she remembers everything and is relying on the Union’s cleansing of all the evidence, and is just plain lying and not wanting to incriminate herself.

The ‘Power of Attorney’ Challenge:

Gillard almost trapped herself in this ‘loss of memory’ strategy in recent weeks.  Ralph Blewitt has a clear memory of what happened over the witnessing of the ‘Power of Attorney’ document connect with the purchase of the Kerr St Property.

Gillard was forced to come up with a strategy to defuse her ‘memory loss’ story on this matter.  She went on the attack and placed her creditability as a Prime Minister up against her accuser in Ralph Blewitt – denigrating him in public in a most vile way – thus causing more questions to be ask about her morality,  integrity, and whether the Prime Minister should be using the office of the Prime Minister to defend the individual serving in that office [herself].

Lawyers Diaries:

Relying on memory failure is all about trying to not lie or be caught in a lie to the public – lawyers keep diaries – and diary notes of meetings.

Gillard will have her past diaries and S&G will have her time sheets and billing invoices.   These are hard evidence material and if Gillard had nothing to hide, she would have offered these diaries up as evidence.

She could claim proof of evidence from these diaries – unless of course they implicated her.

What will it take:

There is so much chewing on the ‘bone’ with very little return … what answer will satisfy Gillard’s harshest critics … what will it take for this matter to go away and be fully resolved?

For me it would need a creditable journalist with no ALP allegiance and unlimited time – perhaps a Barrister who knew Criminal Law, who would question Gillard under a witness type scenario where she had to answer the question under some type if oath that resembled Parliamentary proceedures where she could be held in contempt if she lied or misled with her answers … that would appease me.   Something like a Royal Commission …

To be a realist – why should she subject herself to that sort of probity?  She won’t do it … and what would be the point if the Opposition gain Government at the next election.

There is a great divide here and at play – the ALP Caucus are not acting with the probity required – they are accepting of everything Gillard offers.  They can not see Gillard has not answered the questions … fronting a media conference and answering questions are two different things.

At this level of probity, the highest public office in the land – all concerns should be first on the possibility that something has or did happen – internal investigations should have already taken place to disprove and clear the PM of any involvement of wrong doing.  ALl this evidence is held by the AWU Union and the politicians of the day – Bob Carr, Graham Richardson, Laurie Brereton and others … when will they come forward and clear Gillard with physical evidence … saying it like Carr and Richardson have done is about serving their own self interests …

No .. this is far from a dead issue … the ‘bone’ has hidden flavours and enough to sustain this cause until the next election.

Please – if you found this story to your liking and would like to promote it to your social media contacts – i.e. Twitter, Facebook, or other icon linked account below – please click your favoured Icon(s) to promote the story.  Thankyou.

Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s:

Subscribe to EYE-BALL’s – Harry’s Growl

  1. November 27, 2012 at 10:54 am

    Posted from Andrew Bolts Blog –

    Slater & Gordon this morning explained (in the barest terms) why it ceased acting for the AWU:

    This morning Slater & Gordon released a statement saying:

    “Slater & Gordon has consistently maintained, and still maintains, that at all times it has acted in accordance with its legal and ethical obligations in relation to all aspects of the AWU matter.”

    It said it had obtained independent advice confirming that it: “was (and is) not permitted to divulge confidential and privileged information of one client to another client or any other party.”

    The firm said it “acted for both a union and a union official (personally)” in the “AWU matter.”

    ”In acting for the official, Slater & Gordon obtained information: i). that was confidential to the official; and ii) the disclosure of which to the union would have represented a conflict between the interests of the union and the interests of the official,” the statement said.

    “Slater & Gordon ceased acting for both clients after it became aware of this conflict situation.”

    continues …

    Link to blog story … http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/awu_scandal_why_did_slater_gordon_ditch_the_awu_and_did_gillard_know/

    The reason for this comment – were not the AWU and Wilson though to be one and the same – i.e. AWU … does not the above comment from S&G indicate that S&G treated them as seperate entities … they have two clients as AWU with no probity or authorisation from the primary account allowing the other AWU file and persons acting on that account … this arrangement of dealing with both clients went on for years under Gillard …

    This will be seen as a mistake by S&G … and sure to lead to more enquiry …

  2. November 27, 2012 at 11:29 am

    Hedley Thomas responded with his own story this morning

    So much to know, why so little said?

    by: Hedley Thomas
    From: The Australian
    November 27, 2012 12:00AM

    “YOU can’t report things you don’t know,” the Prime Minister said yesterday, explaining why she never raised a red flag on the AWU Workplace Reform Association in the mid-1990s.

    But there was plenty she did know at the time.

    It is a matter of public record that Julia Gillard’s boyfriend and client, Bruce Wilson, was openly suspected of serious fraud from early August 1995.

    His fraud involved his criminal use of a secret and unauthorised slush fund in Victoria, called the AWU Members Welfare Association No 1 account, which received large cheques from major companies. Wilson controlled the scam.

    There was an immediate internal and then public furore after it first came to light in early August 1995.

    The union quickly forced out Wilson. The union also called on the fraud squad to go hard with a criminal investigation.

    The union’s national leadership would even seek a royal commission into the AWU’s corruption in Victoria.

    The widespread public knowledge of Wilson’s fraud is backed by numerous union documents, sworn affidavits and even newspaper clippings from that actual period.

    In the industrial movement at the time, these were extraordinary events. The depth of Labor and union concern about it has never been in dispute.

    Seventeen years later, the most dangerous question for the Prime Minister today is why – given the very serious concern at the time – she stayed silent about a scandal that also rang very loud alarm bells in her firm, Slater & Gordon.

    Ms Gillard and her firm were inextricably linked with Mr Wilson and were at the centre of a major crisis with devastating fallout, including possible imprisonment for union officials.

    Why, then, did Ms Gillard not blow the whistle by telling the client – the AWU, which employed Mr Wilson – of the existence of a different Perth-based slush fund, the AWU Workplace Reform Association (which was set up using legal advice she provided in early 1992)?

    Each time this question or something like it was asked by journalists in yesterday’s media conference, Ms Gillard’s replied by declaring that she did not have evidence at that time of any “wrongdoing” involving the association, which she later described as a “slush fund”.

    Her argument is that because she did not know about wrongdoing or criminality (at the time) in relation to the association, there was no reason for her to disclose to the AWU’s national leadership – including Bill Ludwig and Ian Cambridge – that she personally knew of another slush fund. But this slush fund carried the union’s name. It was controlled by the same criminal suspect the union had just got rid of. He was Ms Gillard’s boyfriend.

    Ms Gillard’s explanations yesterday avoided a serious point. In weighing, amid the Wilson-fraud furore in 1995, whether to immediately alert the union’s leadership of the existence of the other slush fund (something it should have known about from the very start), Ms Gillard did not need to know whether there ever was wrongdoing involving Workplace Reform Association.

    It was the role of the union and the police to determine whether the association had been rorted like the Victorian slush fund, not Ms Gillard.

    But it can be argued it was the role of the union’s solicitor and her firm – Ms Gillard and Slater & Gordon – to give the AWU a heads-up about the Workplace Reform slush fund’s very existence.

    Surely, it was their role to say, simply: “Mr Ludwig and Mr Cambridge, we at Slater & Gordon do not know if it is dodgy like the Victorian slush fund, but we think you ought to be aware that in 1992, I, Julia Gillard, a salaried partner, provided legal advice to Mr Wilson that led to the creation of something called the AWU Workplace Reform Association, and I have only now told the firm that it, too, was a ‘slush fund’. Unfortunately, nobody else in the firm knew of this work that I had done because when I gave the legal advice, I did not open a file.”

    The union was never told by its own lawyers about the Workplace Reform Association that carried its name. As a result, the union could not investigate it and follow the money trail until it was far too late. The transcript of Ms Gillard’s September 11, 1995, internal tape-recorded interview with the firm makes it obvious that both she and the senior partner, Peter Gordon, are acutely aware of the possibility that the Workplace Reform Association had been financially misused.

    Ms Gillard herself raises this scenario when asked about the financing of the renovation of her own home, and she states: “I can’t categorically rule out that something at my house didn’t get paid for by the association or something at my house didn’t get paid for by the union”.

    It was Ian Cambridge’s relentless pursuit of the fraud that led to the discovery of the Workplace Reform Association – but only after being advised in April, 1996, by the Commonwealth Bank, which he had asked to identify every bank account with the name “AWU” in it.

    By not disclosing anything to the union, Ms Gillard and the firm gave the No 1 suspect, who had been her boyfriend and also a client for the previous four years, a major head-start.

    In that time, Mr Wilson stole a further $150,000 by draining related accounts and selling a property, a Fitzroy terrace house, so that by early 1996, the AWU’s members had no chance of getting the union’s funds back.

    The question about the lack of disclosure is not one for Ms Gillard alone – the firm of Slater & Gordon and its former partners also need to consider their position after repeatedly declining to shed light or comment on the lack of disclosure about something that was rotten.

  3. November 27, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    She played a game & came out looking guilty. She likes to call press conferences on little or no notice so only a few can attend. We are onto that ploy. The fact that she evades answers in parliament & won’t release documents doesn’t look good for her. Two of her male MP’s are now launching an attack on Julie Bishop. Mysoginists?? I think Ralph Blewitt is a more honest person that Julia Gillard & her team. Lots of others are coming to the same conclusion. If a male abused a female the way she abuses men the media would be all over it. Women can be union bullies too.

  4. hillbilly33
    November 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    Disappointed but not surprised! Until the focus is concentrated on what I’ve been putting forward for months, she will continue to lie her way out of this.

    I’ve posted a lot of this before Harry, and will understand if you choose not to tpublish this time, but IMHO it can’t be said too often. I’ll be doing a further post when I can steel myself to look at what Gillard said in her latest sycophantic Canbera Press Gallery slaughter!!

    Julia Gillard’s extraordinary view of right, wrong, ethics and her former role as a solicitor.

    In any legal case nothing anyone may say, write or do can alter the substantive facts.

    The substantive facts publicly admitted by Gillard clearly show she made two initial deliberate, considered choices in full knowledge of her obligations as a solicitor and officer of the court. In doing so, she abandoned the ethics and integrity expected of her, by wilfully and recklessly contravening the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958, under which her Practising Certificate was granted.
    She abandoned her duty of care and obligations to one of her main clients, Victoria Branch AWU and her law firm Slater & Gordon, where, as a salaried partner she had fiduciary obligations to her employers, the equity partnership.
    One of her principal clients was the Australian Workers Union, Victoria Branch. In providing any advice or other assistance relating to Union matters, she was bound to comply with AWU Rules, as well as acting within the Rules of Practice of the above mentioned Act.

    1. By her own admission, in late 1991 she began a long-term intimate relationship with an employee of the AWU, Bruce Wilson,a married man with two small children. In that moment, she wilfully and recklessly contravened the Rules of Practice by creating a conflict of interest for herself, her partners and her principal client, and even Wilson himself, if he later became a client.
    Gillard immediately opened herself to the serious charge of misconduct, and because of the conflict of interest also placed her equity partners at risk in terms of professional indemnity.

    2, By her own admission, in early 1992 she provided advice and assistance to her then lover. Bruce Wilson. to set up and incorporate an association under the Associations Incorporation Act 1987 WA, This was not an industrial Act, but one put in place to assist community and sporting groups to have easier control and tracking of their finances. Unions were not eligible under the Act and other provisions should have disqualified the AWUWRA from beng registered and incorporated, especially for it’s stated purpose.
    In particular, oneprovision preventing any moneys involved being used for personal use or gain by signatories of any bank accounts subsequently opened.

    Despite knowing it was against all relevant Rules of her principal client the AWU, in particular Rules 51 & 54, and despite knowing it did not comply with the relevant Associations Act, Gillard drew up Rules for the proposed association. Whatever Gillard or anyone else thought or claimed were the aims of the association is irrelevant. The setting up and incorporation was unlawful and its sole purpose was to enable her lover Bruce Wilson to open and operate unauthorised bank accounts.

    Analysis of the documents by a handwriting expert, reveal she personally wrote the name ‘Australian Workers Union – Workplace Reform Association’ on
    the required Applicant’s Certificate and the Application for Incorporation, despite knowing that in so doing she was again breaching the relevant Rules of the AWU and the Associations Incorporation Act.
    Somehow, she prevailed upon the W.A Corporate Affairs Commissioner to allow the registration and incorporation of the sham association that had previously been rejected. The contents of the AWUWRA file held in W.A have now mysteriously gone missing.

    Gillard created a file for the substantial work she did which she has referred to at various times as the “incorporation file” or the “AWU Association” file but did not open it on the firm’s system.
    She kept it’s existence hidden from her employers, the equity partnership, and did not advise her principal client, Victoria Branch AWU of the existence of the AWUWRA.
    She only produced the file when forced to do so a few days before her final interview by the partners in September 1995, when serious allegations were put to her following their internal investigation
    She has never offered a satisfactory explanation for any of these actions but it is pertinent to note that opening the file on the firm’s system would have meant exposing her unethical and arguably unlawful actions. Like the W.A file, this file has also mysteriously gone missing!

    Ian Cambridge, former Joint National Secretary of the AWU from May 1994, carried out a detailed investigation into the many discrepancies in AWU finances he uncovered and in Paragraph 11 of his 19/11/96 Affidavit, sets out in detail the reasons why the setting up and incorporation of the association was unlawful. He also tracked the source and disbursement of monies and established the subsequent misuse of funds meant for use of the AWU, out of the two initial bank accounts Gillard had enabled her boy friend to open at the CBA in W.A., AWUWRA Inc Cash Management at call A/c No. 6005 1000 2590 and AWUWRA Inc. Cheque A/c.No.6000 1000 2582.

    Over $540,000 of monies paid to the AWU and meant to be used for designated Union activities, were identified by Ian Cambridge as being deposited into these two accounts and then being improperly used by Bruce Wilson and his AWU accomplice Ralph Blewitt.
    The source of the money was mainly from the Building Construction Industry Training Fund (BCITF) that had been set up by the WA Government in 1990, funded by taxpayers plus levied contributions from some companies.
    Most of the deposited money had been onpaid to the AWUWRA by Thiess Contractors which was managed by Wilson’s brother-in-law, Joe Trio.
    Bruce Wilson had been a Board member of the BCITF.

    It is extraordinary that it appears under Victorian jurisdiction, none of Gillard’s actions are considered to be “wrong”, since repeatedly stating “I did nothing wrong” is the only “defence” (??) she has offered.

    It is chilling that her interpretation has apparently been endorsed by many Victorian trained lawyers sitting in Federal Parliament, up to and including the current occupant of the highest legal post in Australia, Gillard-appointed Attorney-General Nicola Roxon!

    It poses a very serious question. Are there any ethical lawyers on the Left side of politics in Victoria , or Australia for that matter?
    If so, why aren’t they speaking up and defending their profession against it’s reputation being trashed and dragged into disrepute by this Prime Minister’s earlier actions and current behaviour?!

  5. November 27, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    Welcome G Campbell …

    I agree with the Ralph Blewitt assessment … he at least has recanted and has some humility over his involvement …

  6. November 27, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    Thank you. People are beginning to realise there is definitely a case to be answered here. The only person who is not being honest is the one who is supposed to hold the highest standards.

  7. November 27, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    Thanks Hillbilly – and yes your efforts are very much appreciated … no contrubution can be understated … all we can do at the moment is continued to mount pressure and allow human nature and the conscience of good people to take its course …

    People who have knowledge and can provide evidence on this matter will see the PM’s responses and be drawn into making their contribution … as she continued to dig her own hole …

    Her challenge in daring someone to come up with proof is a slippery slide she may regret riding …

  8. Gerry Hatrick
    November 28, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    Vote 1 Hillbilly 33

  9. hillbilly33
    November 28, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    Thanks but no thanks Gerry. Haven’t sunk that low yet. Mind you, if I was 50 or 60 years younger and looking for a successful life in crime, I’d study law in Victoria, get a job with a Labor law firm, bone up on devious legal behaviour and selective memory loss, find a Union to represent, leave law and become a Union Officer, rip off the members and live the high life for a while, sleep with all and sundry along the way, either get elected to Parliament or ingratiate myself with a corrupt really high flyer and get appointed to some Committee/Board and/or Statutory Authority, maybe even a judicial appointment, draw a huge salary and finish up with a hefty lifetime pension with lots of perks, all funded by the taxpayer . Of course, all the time being protected by all sorts of people who have followed similar paths on either side of politics, from any close scrutiny and punishment for the frauds and other crimes committed along the way,

    Any young person’s dream. A shining career path already successfully trail-blazed by so many! Enough to make others finish up old, grumpy and very cynical!!

  10. November 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    It has become very clear the Australian people have no protection whatsoever. We have someone who was not elected running our country into a ditch. She has attempted to turn our democracy into a dictatorship & on the majority of occasions she succeeds. How can all of these new laws be made quietly behind closed doors. They are all designed to disadvantage the people & advantage the government in one way or another. We have only had this person in office for 2 years & she has done more damage than anyone would have thought possible. Why is it that not one person in labor, greens or an independant has the decency to say ENOUGH! The whole lot will be remembered for dirty deeds & not for anything good they did in public life. Oh wait, the PM has decided they won’t teach our history in our schools any more so I suppose it would remain swept carefully under the carpet. I wish I could say what I REALLY think.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: