Home > Current Affairs, Human Interest, Human Rights, Politics - Domestic, Politics - International, The EYE-BALL Opinion > EYE-BALL Opinion – The Case for A Beheading – A Requiem – What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander –

EYE-BALL Opinion – The Case for A Beheading – A Requiem – What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander –


Latest ‘EYE-BALL Opinion’ Posts:

– 29th Nov – A Slithering, Slimy, Spitting Lizard – Part II – Gillard’s been hiding in the Tall Grass – A follow-up Story –

– 28th Nov – A slithering, slimy, spitting Lizard – Gillard’s been hiding in the Tall Grass – now exposed –

– 26th Nov – The Collective v the Abstract – Gillard is aware of her wrong doings –

– 25th Nov – Distressed Damsel Gillard’s Black Knight – Bruce Wilson’s 11th hour offer to defend Gillard –

– 24th Nov – The Jewish v Arab problem – A naive perspective –

– 24th Nov – Hedley Thomas plunges the knife – Gillard mortally wounded –

– 23rd Nov – Immigration and Asylum Seekers – What is the real answer –

– 20th Nov – Schoolies Week Starts – The Booze for Kids debate again heats up –

– 16th Nov – How Deep does the AWU corruption cover-up go? – An exposé on innuendo, evidence, hearsay and conjecture –

– 15th nov – Hedley Thomas exploding on Gillard – Gillard has a case to answer … –

– 14th Nov – Gillard behaves like a Guilty Person – Asks for allegations to be made –

– 14th Nov – The Australian Media – Lapdog’s at best – absolutely lost the plot on integrity, and their charter of responsibility –

– 9th Nov – Open Letter to “The Independents” Re: –
– Julia Gillard, Peter Slipper, and Craig Thompson, three MP’s who bring continued shame to our Parliament –

– 9th Nov – “Courage is an Angle” – the difference between a good day and a great day –

– 8th Nov – RUDD fires a broadside aimed at GILLARD – done under a burka to hide its true intent –

– 6th Nov – Gillard’s caucus and union support in revolt – her position becoming more untenable by the day –

– 5th Nov – Referendum Discussion Part 1 – Compulsory Voting – Eye-Ball’s – “None of the Above Campaign” –

– 4th Nov – Gillard Sunburnt – the flames of discontent begin to impact –

– 2nd Nov – A Montage of AWU Scandal Reports – Gillard to become “Open-Season” –

– 1st Nov – Education … A white Elephant – Politicising the future of young Australians –

– 30th Oct – How do you awake a slumbering nation – Politicians – the most empty of vessels –

– 30th Oct – Whistleblowers – love ‘em’ or hate ‘em’ –

– 29th Oct – Polls pressure Abbott’s Leadership – Worst PM ever holds lead and flaunts her position –

– 28th Oct – Eye-Ball’s “YUCK FILES -1” – ABC’s “Insiders” – Barry Cassidy –

– To see more EYE-BALL ‘Opinion’ posts:

click here …

– The Case for A Beheading – A Requiem –
– What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander –
| Author: EYE-BALL Opinion | 1st Dec 2012 |
The weeks review of events in the Gillard verses the Australian public can only point to her continued survival.

There is much debate and bluster over her continued denial to answer direct questions – the upshot is that the burden of proof is with those trying to prove she has done something wrong.  All else is conjecture, supposition, and conspiracy theory.

During the week that was, a week that – ‘will live in infamy’ to use Winston Churchill like rhetoric, Gillard has survived – be it with a mortal legacy that has cast a toxic pail all over and around her.  Those standing close to her have also become toxic.   One might say Gillard is ‘a dead woman walking’ – and the longer the ALP caucus align up behind her – the damage to the ALP brand name become bigger and ever looming large as we approach an election year.

Some of the Gillard wounding during the week was internal – the defeat of the PM by the Cabinet and the Caucus over the UN Security Council vote on Palestine wounded her more that anything the Opposition threw at her during Question Time.  Out of that Caucus defeat a new contender has emerged – Bob Carr staked his claim … and for Bob Carr his narrow ego will now be unstoppable.

One has to take stock after a week like we have just had – a review process and acknowledgement of just how much has been won, and what was the political cost in gaining the ground achieved.

Firstly – The Opposition:

Abbott’s absence from the dispatch box for the first two days was tactical and obvious.  He emerged and ask a question on the UN Security Council defeat of the PM on Wednesday,  and then on the Thursday, he spoke to a special suspension of Standing Orders to allow a 15 minute debate on Gillard’s criminality.   The rating for the Opposition for the week was 5 out of 10 – it was a mixed bag or results.

Another way to weigh up the week is to say that the Opposition landed light-weight blows in the latter part of the week – but Gillard had them covered all week.

A more detailed summation:

  • Mr Abbott is intimidated by the PM – he shy’s away from the ‘gender’ debate and the misogynist tirade has impacted on his confidence – he is afraid to be seen taking Gillard on in the ‘sexist’ debate because he fears an electoral backwash.  Gillard played a great card when she went this route – it was desperate and gave her breathing space within her own Party.  The morality of the ‘sexist’ card from a women PM will not endear herself to women across Australia, and the polls will reflect a downturn for Gillard on this week’s performance.
  • Ms Bishop [Julie] had an outstanding week – her demeanor when compared with the PM’s performance demonstrates the gap between Honourable and dis-Honourable.  Gillard’s performance highlighted by her continued dance around all the questions being put to her – has bought the Parliament great shame.   Gillard held the whole of Parliament in contempt with her performance.   But who is going to call her on it – The Speaker fail to do so.
  • For the most part the Opposition was well-behaved and restrained … exceptions were Sophia Mirabella and we all get that she has issues and finds it hard to keep her mouth shut … Bronwyn Bishop had a good week, Christopher Pyne was restrained and cognisant of the importance of staying in the chamber,  and that was about all we heard from the Opposition Front-Bench and back-benchers.
  • The Oppositions tactics bore fruit on the last sitting day of the week – Thursday – but the opportunity to nail Gillard came from an outside source.   Gillards former lover and partner in the AWU fraud Bruce Wilson, in responding to the attacks on his ‘damsel in distress’ – offer up his first interview since this matter began.  The ‘7:30 Report‘ aired Wilson’s interview on Wednesday and during that interview Wilson spoke about the letter written to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission by Ms Gillard arguing the case for the registration of the AWU Workplace Reform Association.  From that ‘letter’ exposure to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission came a waiver that allowed further text from the ‘exit interview’ Gillard gave S&G to be released.

The ‘text’ of that interview was reported in EYE-BALL’s previous post – “A slithering, slimy, spitting Lizard – Gillard’s been hiding in the Tall Grass – now exposed” and – linked here.

Secondly – The Government:

It was a roller-coaster ride for the PM and the Government – full of fire and brimstone – Gillard came out on Monday fully prepared for the declared WAR the Opposition had promised.  In one foul swoop – Gillard destroyed the Oppositions options – she held her Press Conference and answered another marathon barrage of questions.  The Press gallery was again under prepared and intimidated – and they did what they always do … soft pedal …

  • The PM’s performance was again commanding – you might not like her but you have to acknowledge that she has the ability and presence to perform at her best when it is needed – and perform she did.   Her Monday Press conference an hour before Question Time took all the wind from the Opposition’s sails. It was tactically perfect in its execution and timing.  The Opposition had to wait until Wednesday before they saw the PM bleed any blood – and as stated that was a self-inflicted wound on the PM by her own party over the UN Security Council decision.
  • The PM danced up and down all her previous answers out side the House when responding to Bishop’s Question Time assault. The PM’s use of the quote – ‘I am on the record on these matters – I refer you to those previous answers’ – to help her obfuscate her answers allowed her to never answer a question directly.
  • Her minder – the fool and often court jester Albanese proved yet again that he is more deserving of a place in pre-school as opposed to being called ‘The Leader of the House’.  Surely he must review his performance and for him to think that what he offers in the House does not come from a ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ comic strip suggests his proper place is somewhere other than a Member of Parliament.
  • Mr Rudd sat in the bleachers and not a peep was heard – nor a camera shot … but the whole front bench hung on every work Gillard had in response – were they looking for a sip, a misspeak, or were they being engorged by the PM’s performance?

The week is best summarised by Paul Kelly and his ‘Editor at Large’ story in the ‘Weekend Australian‘ – it is reproduced below:

Finally, the real Julia

| Author: PAUL KELLY, EDITOR-AT-LARGE | Date: Dec 1st, 2012 | Link to On-Line Story. |

THE final parliamentary week of 2012 was dominated by the stunning political persona of Julia Gillard – fierce, feminist and unrestrained – whose will-to-survival is Labor’s last, best but highly dangerous hope.

The real Julia is unleashed in her self-righteous fury and calculated aggression. Her voice now bounces across the summer landscape invading homes, hotels and workplaces. Her arch opponent, Tony Abbott, is traduced as sexist, relentlessly negative and an agent of smear as the nation divides between those who applaud Julia and those appalled by her.

Gillard has summoned up all the hostility and prejudice directed towards her and thrown it back in the face of her accusers with added venom. At the dispatch box her vituperation assumes a shocking, sharper edge precisely because she is a woman, yet it disappears when she momentarily falters in the chamber consumed by grief and compelled to reference the death of her father whom she loved deeply.

While the media is obsessed about Abbott’s less than complex character and personality it seems struck dumb by Gillard who, in her transformation as Prime Minister, is the much more challenging psychological and political study. Was it as recent as the 2010 campaign the public got confused between real and fake Julia?

Gillard has resolved the confusion by the projection of a deeply polarising though tenacious persona, using her sex to attack her opponent, having to endure the humiliation of her past choice of male partners put on public display and recruiting a series of causes from disability to school education to entrench a true believer-caring identity.

The biggest political story of 2012 is how Gillard turned weakness into strength. Facing a primary vote in the 28-30 per cent death zone, Gillard began to operate on the assumption she was strong, not weak. It was a psychological defiance of reality and became the year’s great drama. The upshot is that she intimidated Kevin Rudd, abused Abbott as a misogynist, patronisingly told business it had nothing to complain about, loaded the budget with unfunded true-believer Labor policies and accused virtually anybody who raises the AWU slush fund affair of “sleaze and smear”.

The trap in this psycho-political drama is overreach. Has Gillard gone too far? Has she overreached on each front? Will her initial poll improvements disappear when reality strikes back? There is an irony in such questions because, of course, for the past six months Gillard has nailed Abbott for proven overreach in his exaggerations about the carbon tax, an overreach that damaged Abbott’s credibility.

But this week, Gillard did go too far. She claimed as PM an authority she did not possess. It was a mistake neither Bob Hawke nor John Howard would have made. Sitting in cabinet on Monday night Gillard, after only two ministers backed her and upwards of 10 opposed her, said her view would prevail and Australia would vote against UN recognition of Palestine’s non-member state observer status.

This transferred the issue to caucus. Gillard fought to muster the numbers but was undone by the NSW Right. She retreated only when confronted with defeat and certain damage to her leadership. It was a stark demonstration of her will to dominate and tenacious determination to impose her authority.

It is the same mindset she brings to the “war on character” against Abbott. It is the mindset that has seen Gillard erode Abbott’s public standing, expose the limitations of his tactics, provoke fresh doubts about his durability and instil hope into Labor ranks.

Both leaders are pledged to win the 2013 election by making the other unelectable. The personal poison in the Gillard-Abbott confrontation will only intensify because, on both sides, it is embedded in the character issue.

While Abbott came slowly to embrace the AWU slush fund accusations against Gillard, he is now a believer. This week, he crossed the threshold. He will run the issue against Gillard until voting day and use it as a hook to prosecute Labor from office if he wins.

The two most unexpected political events of the year were Gillard’s playing of the misogyny card and the Coalition’s year-end resurrection of the AWU slush fund from Gillard’s time as a solicitor. They are linked in an elemental fashion – the first as Gillard’s character strike against her opponent and the second as Abbott’s character strike against his opponent.

All week Abbott outsourced the attack to his female deputy, Julie Bishop. This was essential – because Abbott is a man, it is too politically dangerous for him to lead the attack on Gillard’s past.

The week ended in a stalemate. The Coalition wounded Gillard but there is no sign it has evidence that will jeopardise her leadership. Gillard, however, cannot dispose of the issue because she cannot eliminate the doubts the attack raised of alleged professional misconduct as a solicitor.

The central charge by Abbott is that Gillard as a lawyer gave misleading information to the West Australian Corporate Affairs Commission in establishing the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association acting on advice from her client and boyfriend, an AWU official, Bruce Wilson, who then used the entity to extort monies from companies.

Abbott told the parliament: “The Prime Minister’s involvement in it was this: she gave the advice and she made the representations that enabled the association to be incorporated; that facilitated the fraud.”

His second charge is that Gillard later stayed silent, which meant that funds that belonged legitimately to the AWU were siphoned off from the entity by Wilson and his bagman, Ralph Blewitt.

Abbott said Gillard’s actions were improper and unethical. On Thursday morning, going further, he said Gillard had broken the law by giving misleading information. He accepted that Gillard did not know at the time about Wilson’s fraudulent use of the fund.

But Abbott finished with an assault on Gillard’s character: “So the question for members sitting behind the Prime Minister today is: is she a fit and proper person to hold the prime ministership of our country?”

In reply, Gillard went for Abbott’s jugular. Abbott, she said, “was calling for my resignation on the basis that I had committed a crime”. He was a “rash man” and “a man who clutches for negativity and sleaze whenever he can”.

In parliament and at her press conferences, Gillard said her only role had been to advise on the incorporation of the fund. She had no role in its management nor did she operate its accounts. Explaining why she did not later alert authorities to the fraud, Gillard said she did not know about it.

Under WA law, the association could be incorporated only for limited purposes of a charitable nature.

Its declared purpose was to promote safer workplaces. However, at her August media conference, Gillard said she knew at the time of its creation the association’s purpose was “to support the re-election of a team of union officials”.

This, presumably, is why she later called it a “slush fund”. What, therefore, does the re-election of union officials have to do with workplace safety?

The link, Gillard told that press conference, is the team of union officials would stand on “a platform for change” because “they were committed to reforming workplaces” to promote safety.

This is a tortured effort to reconcile the real purpose with the declared purpose. Gillard later resigned as a salaried partner of Slater & Gordon. The firm lost its substantial account with the AWU. The association was used for large-scale fraud and this was possible only because it was registered with the name “Australian Workers Union” in the title.

In acting on behalf of Wilson, Gillard did not create a file, apparently did not tell the firm and did not believe it was necessary to get further consent of the AWU to use its name as Wilson was an AWU official.

Section 8 (1) of the relevant WA law says “the commissioner shall not incorporate an association” if its name is “likely to mislead the public as to the object or purposes of the association”.

This is why Abbott raised the breach of law. Gillard denies any such breach. Abbott’s mistake this week was to make the claim without having a fistful of legal opinions to this effect. They should be not be hard to acquire.

Is Gillard being excessively penalised for actions she took 20 years ago? Probably.

But that comes with the prime ministership. Does she deserve to lose her job? No. Will she be damaged? Yes. Will the issue disappear? No. Does Abbott run a political risk persevering with this character issue? Almost certainly.

But Abbott this week also framed the issue as an example of Labor ties to trade union corruption and lack of proper accountability.

By calling for a judicial inquiry, Abbott signals he will seek an election mandate for follow-up action in office. That might be limited to this AWU case or, more appropriately, have wider scope.

It will be seen within Labor and the trade union movement as a declaration of political war. Abbott has taken a critical decision – he will go to the next election with an aggressive pledge not on industrial relations reform but on trade union accountability.

At the 2007 election, the unions did an immeasurable service to Labor with their anti-Work Choices campaign.

Abbott now gambles that, at next year’s election, he can make trade union accountability an issue and, in the process, keep Gillard in the “AWU slush fund” frame.

The mutual character assassination is guaranteed to intensify.

Paul Kelly has a well-respected and highly regarded reputation. His Wikipedia profile can be read using this link.

The above piece is unbiased and a true appraisal of how most disenfranchised ALP supporters might feel.  They largely agree Abbott is not the alternative … they agree Gillard has Leadership skills … but they also agree she is not their elected Leader.  Collectively – these disenfranchised ALP supporters, when joined by the Coalition supporter base – all agree that this PM has a past that dishonors the Office of the Prime Minister – she is not a ‘fit and proper’ person to serve as our Prime Minister.

Do you think she would want a do-over – hardly given the way she is clinging on in a desperate attempt to right a sinking ship.  Too many Ministers have hooked themselves to her hip and connected to the ships anchor – they have all vowed to go down with the ship with her.   Time will tell how committed they are to self-sacrifice.

This continued daring and recklessness by a Government fully committed to supporting a PM with a criminal past,  is too big to admit it’s error.   Replacing Rudd was when it all started from the electorate’s perspective – but the Union plan and strategy to replace Rudd was years in the making.  Rudd was but the puppet to win Government from Howard – his fate was sealed the first day he took office – it was just a matter of time before the Unions aligned the circumstances before they acted.

Gillard represents the face of Unions – allowing Craig Thompson to continue to serve as an ALP endorsed MP was evidence of that.  His becoming an Independent was a disguise and stunt to give Gillard deniability in that she could continued to allow him to serve in her caucus.

That is an evil that has embraced this Government and the Independents who hold the balance of power know it all to well.

The AWU revelations thus far are but a scratch of the surface – the Unions are corrupt to the core.  This whole exercise started with Rudd’s assassination and Gillard just could not say no when her loyalty was tested and she was offered the PM role by the assassins.   The Unions will rue the day their collective decision was to purge themselves of Mr Rudd and go with Gillard.

The Union Mantra:

Let’s go with full disclosure here – the concept of a Union being representative of the workers and fighting for the rights of the workers is the stage setting the Unions want everybody to see.

Behind that setting is another story that has been exposed and talked about for decades.  Employers, i.e. the Corporate world have for ever done deals with Union boss’s to free up their workplace and make them free of industrial actions.  The way this has happened is by payments disguised as ‘workplace safety’ and the like, as in the AWU scandal case.

These payments are made to Union Boss’s and the corrupt Boss’s within the Union Management – i.e. the likes of Wilson and Blewitt, turn these ‘slush-fund’ type payments into their own personal expense treasure to do with as they want.

The employer gets a bona-fide tax deduction to boot, and if the money trail was followed – as with the AWU scandal – these funds will never see the light of day – they disappear through laundered transactions to turn them into personal wealth or expended in lifestyle choices.  The Mike Williamson HSU fraud is estimated at some $20 million over his time in charge – remember he was the National Secretary of the ALP at one stage.

Another fact – the 1.8 – 2.2 million Union members across Australia depending on who you listen to – pay over $1 billion in membership dues in a single year – only the members get a financial statement of how those funds are accounted for.   There is no regulatory requirement to account for the expenditure of those members funds other than to the members … a $billion dollars a year of members subscriptions – where does it go?

Now if an employee was to embezzle funds from an employee and is caught – it is a crime and they will do time.  For Unions to extort/blackmail funds from Contractors to secure ‘strike-free’ work zones – can they be deemed the same if those funds are not reported to the Union, or are kept off-book for alternative purposes?  Do the members have entitlement to these funds – is this theft by deception?  If the funds are returned for the benefit of members – is there still a crime visa viz the extortion/blackmail aspect of the transaction?

Now look again to Mike Williamson, and Craig Thompson’s Union activity – both were Union boss’s who are now facing criminal proceedings for their personal use of funds from these types of transactions.   If it was just a rorting of the Members funds that is clear embezzlement.   But to set up a complicated scam where Associations are registered, Bank accounts opened to received the cash, and all this wass done in the AWU case, under the nose of the primary AWU through the same Law Firm.  Wilson used his girlfriend to argue a case to allow the Association to be registered after being first refused – surely the ALP caucus are not fools.

Their problem is that they are all neck deep in it – they dump Gillard they risk her turning on them all and putting them all in it.  This is the crux … Gillard having had her past cleansed by the Union thugs intimidating the connected people, she can now turn on them if they leave her like a shag on a rock.

This corrupt Union exposure has a long way to go and it will involve many of Australia’s largest Corporate employers.   Thiess for example – it was Wilson’s brother-in-law that made the cash/cheque payments to the ‘AWU Workplace Reform Association.

What was the split – did the brother-in-law get a kickback for the contribution, and did the ‘Schools Rebuilding’ program managed by Gillard during the GFC cash injection, and the $100’s millions of contracts handed to Thiess have links to Gillard and the Thiess connections from 1992-95?

Now consider this scenario and look again to the AWU scandal – Wilson was king in WA,  yet he needed Gillard his girlfriend to help him set up the scam.   The firm Gillard worked for – Slater & Gordon – a well known ALP law firm – do you not think that as lawyers they would be aware of how to launder funds – and in particular these lumpy and large monies paid by Corporate employers and contractors.  This has to have been a well-tried and tested practice for decades, if not centuries.

This is the heart of the matter before all Australia now – have the Unions and their declared workforce representation now turned into a buggering of those workers so they can use the membership loyalty to leverage site payments from the contractor to guarantee ‘strike-free’ work zones, and then use those payoff’s as personal funds for personal use?

It is time to find out once and for all – and nothing less than a Royal Commission to investigate every Union in Australia, their books, their site management records, and the forensic investigations of the Contractors to find out who paid the money, and how that money was used and who it was used by.

This is what Gillard and her Union cronies are worried by – it is plausible to consider that Peter Gordon’s silence was purchased with his appointment to the High Court – if that is the case how high does the corruption go?

What lawyers do at the bequest of their clients is privileged – if it is knowingly unlawful or intended to defraud – what is the lawyers responsibility?

A lawyer can not knowingly be associated or connected with the committing of a crime, in its setup, its operations, and in the disposal of proceeds from crime.   Many are and their defence is to challenge others to prove the wrong doing – how is Gillard’s defence any different to this.  Lawyers who are involved on the shady side of life are very clever in protecting themselves and covering their tracks.

Hedley Thomas files a story today titled: “Time for union inquiry, says Michael Costa” – can be read below:

Time for union inquiry, says Michael Costa

| Author: Hedley Thomas | Date: Dec 1st, 2012 | Link to On-Line Story. |

SIXTEEN years after he opposed a call for a royal commission into union corruption and fraud, one-time union leader and former NSW treasurer Michael Costa has declared Australia now needs a public inquiry.

Mr Costa told The Weekend Australian yesterday he was in “total agreement” about the need for a high-level inquiry run by a serving or retired judge to investigate the management of unions, following a series of scandals.

“I believe that Julia Gillard should look at an inquiry into a range of allegations across the union movement,” Mr Costa said.

“There is a need to clear the air for trade union members over union administration generally, particularly after what we have seen in the HSU (Health Services Union).

“In fact I would go further and ask why union executives and management committees are not held to account in the same way as company executives. Unions collect money and ought to be regulated to the same extent.”

In 1996, Mr Costa was said to have been “horrified” and determined to shut down the efforts of the then national leader of the Australian Workers Union, Ian Cambridge, who was seeking a royal commission into the union’s fraud scandal.

Details of Mr Cambridge’s August 1996 diary entry, documenting strong resistance to a public inquiry into the AWU’s corruption, emerged as Tony Abbott pledged to set up a royal commission to investigate matters including the Prime Minister’s role in the same scandal.

The Weekend Australian has obtained the comprehensive diary of Mr Cambridge, a former joint national secretary of the AWU and now a commissioner for Fair Work Australia.

Mr Cambridge wanted a royal commission in 1996 after his discovery of significant corruption involving Bruce Wilson, who was Ms Gillard’s boyfriend and client when she was a salaried partner at the law firm Slater & Gordon.

His diary for August 1996 describes a meeting at the Labor Council building in Sydney, which included Mr Costa, then assistant secretary of the Labor Council; and his colleagues John Robertson (now NSW Opposition Leader); Mark Busby; and AWU NSW secretary Russ Collison.

The meeting occurred amid investigations by West Australian police, who were urged by Mr Cambridge and AWU national president Bill Ludwig to bring criminal charges for fraud over a slush fund, called the AWU Workplace Reform Association.

Neither Mr Ludwig nor Mr Cambridge knew then that the AWU’s solicitor at Slater & Gordon, Ms Gillard, had given legal advice to her boyfriend in 1992 that helped lead to the incorporation of the association.

Ms Gillard has repeatedly and strenuously denied wrongdoing and said she had no knowledge of the operations of the association.

“Fairly quickly, the discussion at the meeting moved to the question of the internal conflict within the AWU,” the Cambridge diary entry states. “(Michael) Costa mentioned a number of matters.

“Costa specifically indicated he thought that the current ‘war’ in the AWU was causing serious damage to the Right faction and that there needed to be some sort of solution established fairly quickly … to limit the damage.

“In particular, Costa said that he was horrified at the public call that I had made for a royal commission and that he was further alarmed by the subsequent calls that (union leader Steve Harrison) had recently made in respect of a (National Crime Authority) investigation.

“Costa said he thought that these sorts of things were the last thing that the faction and the movement needed and that the idea of having pecuniary interest exposures and things of that nature was just crazy.

“He then went on to say that there would be no royal commission into these things and at this point I suggested to him that I could possibly guess as to why he was so confident. Costa then openly replied that he was aware that the (federal workplace relations) minister, Peter Reith, had been spoken to about these issues and that therefore there would be no further inquiry into these matters.”

Mr Costa said yesterday his view then was that police were best positioned to get to the bottom of the fraud allegations.

“I would have strongly supported a full police investigation,” he said. “But a royal commission is something extraordinary, it wouldn’t have been justified at that time.”

Mr Reith said if he had known then of the corruption, he would have set up an inquiry.

Evidence remains the key – the AWU scandal has two missing files that would sink Gillard – the file she set up off-book when she was a partnered lawyer at Slater & Gordon, and the file containing the letter Gillard wrote to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission in support to have them reverse their decision and allow the new Association to be formed.

Without the evidence contained in those files – Gillard can carry on posturing and not answer the direct questions being asked.  Until someone has hard evidentiary proof Gillard knows she is safe.

The aftertaste is bitter for all who want her gone.  All Australia know something happened here – whether it will ever be fully exposed is a countdown exercise with reset buttons all in the ALP’s favour.

Hedley Thomas wrote a second story in today’s Weekend Australian on his thoughts for a Judicial enquiry.  His story appears below:

Information at hand for a sharp, short judicial inquiry

| Author: Hedley Thomas | Date: Dec 1st 2012 | Link to On-Line Story. |

THE judicial inquiry that Tony Abbott pledges will unpick the Australian Workers Union fraud scandal if he becomes prime minister can be short, sharp and inexpensive.

Much is on the public record in statements by Julia Gillard and others. Banking records first obtained when the AWU’s national leadership called for a royal commission into this scandal in 1996 remain readily available.

There are affidavits sworn by union officials who will need to stand behind what they said back then or risk perjury charges.

The documentary material includes the transcript of Gillard’s interview with her firm in 1995, and more than 160 pages of contemporaneous diary entries by Ian Cambridge, the AWU’s cleanskin national joint secretary, now a commissioner for Fair Work Australia.

Investigating lawyers in a formal public inquiry will not take long to understand the anatomy of the scam.

Senior AWU and Labor Party figures who have known these facts since the mid 1990s hope that some of the media commentators continue to plead ignorance.

A judicial inquiry, however, will dig out the truth. It will do it quickly because the scam that permitted Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt to rip off hundreds of thousands of dollars is not very complicated. Information kept from the AWU permitted the scam to start in June 1992.

Secrecy and a lack of transparency allowed the scam to embezzle about $400,000 of AWU funds over a few years.

At the start, the secrecy occurred on several levels. If there had been openness and transparency on one of those levels, the scam would have been exposed.

First, there was the failure to tell the AWU of the vehicle that would be used to perpetrate the scam. The vehicle was a legal entity registered under laws in WA as the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association Inc yet the union itself had no idea it had been brought into existence.

If the union’s national leadership – or almost anyone with standing in the AWU other than Wilson or Blewitt – had been told then of this entity’s existence the scam would have collapsed before any money was misappropriated.

Lawyers familiar with union rules know they cannot create new entities that carry the union’s name, on the unverified say-so of the lawyer’s own boyfriend and his sidekick. Gillard argues she had no need to inform the union because her clients, Blewitt and Wilson, were elected union officials. But these sorts of decisions need to be properly debated and approved by committee.

Second, there was a lack of transparency within the firm of Slater & Gordon, where Gillard then worked as a salaried partner, attending to the legal work of Wilson and the AWU.

Gillard’s failure to open a file in relation to her legal work to help incorporate the association meant that for three years nobody else in the firm knew anything about it. Further, Gillard did not consult any of the other partners about her work that led to the incorporation of the association, notwithstanding the expertise of her colleagues in the area. Gillard has said it was not unusual to do minor legal work without opening a file.

Slater & Gordon has said it was bound by client confidentiality and could not tell the AWU about the existence of the association.

Third, there was a failure to inform the WA commissioner for corporate affairs, the public servant in Perth who was responsible in 1992 for ensuring people seeking to register entities were not attempting to sow the seeds of a scam.

The commissioner never knew what Gillard and her clients always knew – that the association was a union slush fund.

Any public servant looking at the actual application documents back then (and any member of the public who now reads those as well as the association’s elaborate “rules” that Gillard admitted writing) would reasonably conclude that it all purported to be about the promotion of workplace safety for AWU members on the job. Gillard says part of the association’s purpose was the election of union officials running on a workplace safety platform.

A judicial inquiry, if one is set up by an Abbott government, will hear of an overall pattern of omission from the AWU itself, within the law firm that employed Gillard, and from the government authority responsible for permitting the association’s registration with its misleading name and purpose and rules.

Gillard has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, saying she had no knowledge of the workings of the association.

But, once incorporated, the proper-sounding AWU Workplace Reform Association would issue invoices for fictitious AWU services in safety that were promptly paid by Thiess.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars flowed into the related bank accounts and even into a hole in the dirt in Blewitt’s backyard. The cash flowed into the purchase of a $230,000 terrace house in Melbourne for Wilson’s use. Gillard has denied the cash helped her pay for the renovation of her own nearby house at Abbotsford.

Neither Gillard nor Wilson has denied that $5000 was deposited into Gillard’s account as claimed in a statutory declaration by former union employee Wayne Hem. Although they cannot recall it. If the deposit occurred, it is unclear where the $5000 came from, and Wilson has denied Gillard received any benefit from the slush fund.

I am not in full agreement that a short judicial enquiry will fix or fully expose this Union mess and how far it encroaches into the political arena.  Any Judicial or Royal Commission type enquiry focused solely on the AWU, and perhaps the HSU as well, will represent a narrow reach.

The concept of Unionism needs a complete overhaul with any result needing to have accountability along the lines of Company Directors and the fiduciary responsibilities put in place.    In the short-term – the investigative journalist pursuing this story would love to hear from anybody who is in a position to assist.

It is time for a short break – this site will focus on much lighter matters over the next few weeks – some JOKE updates, some Movies and TV reviews, more GURU stuff, and perhaps a few days where the beach sounds good.   I wish to thank all who have supported the site over the past year and remind all that free speech is alive and well at this site.

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

The EYE-BALL Opinion …

  1. December 1, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    I am deeply offended by the performance of Gillard. This week in particular. I think she should apologise to the entire country for such an unprofessional, hateful, low brow series of rants & failure to respond appropriately to simple questions.Her refusal to allow documents to be tabled shows utter contempt for our law & our standards.
    Her disgraceful behaviour on Thursday was done in front of a gallery full of school children. I thought we were supposed to taking bullying out of schools~not teaching them how to do it. As a woman, this PM makes me feel ashamed. There was always hope a female Pm would have a soothing effect & be more communicative than men & resolve issues is a less combative way, This vile harpie is more aggressive than any male & uses gutter language as well!
    I have never seen a so called leader or senior politicians speak the way the labor party has this week. It just goes to shows you can put a suit on a union thug but in the end it is still nothing but a thug. The fact they have so little regard for the workers they represent should have all union members marching in the street demanding an enquiry into where all the stolen money has gone.
    There was a time when Australia would have demanded this & stopped allowing the main stream media to use biased reporting to help to try & make it all go away. Every time I hear someone say “move on” I now wonder what it is they are trying to hide. 1/10 for the offensive & disgraceful Miss Gillard. 10/10 for class Mrs. bishop.

  2. December 1, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    I hear you and whilst we all wanted a better Xmas present … we never know what the future may hold … sometimes the dam crack takes weeks before the pressure builds silently in the night before it bursts … Gillard’s ‘dam’ wall has cracked … to early to rejoice … but take some solice in the knowledge that good people are out there pursing this cause …

  3. Barry M
    December 1, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    g campbell…I am with you, how anyone can call a shrieking harridan “commanding” with leadership qualities is beyond belief. This is what is wrong with todays new age thinking. Because you can shriek the loudest with a potty mouth and belittle people does not make you a leader. It makes you a common sewer rat. It might give her supporters a cheap thrill, it might make her fellow Emily Listers moist and make her union buddies erect, but it leaves decent people despairing for their country..
    There is nothing she does or says that portrays leadership. The only thing she commands is a filthy mouth. She has the demeanour of a gangsters moll.
    Leadership is best shown by style and grace, a real leader is driven by an ethics based values system enriched by morality. A real leader can be as tough as teak but still have human decency.

  4. barry
    December 1, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    How Ms Gillard is still permitted in the parliament just beggars belief.

    Parliamentary privilege? More like an open invitation to anyone to throw garbage at someone they don’t like .
    Or one of the best ways to escape from the claws of reality.

    This is not politics. It is not about running the country . It is not about working for the interests of the people .

    It is about a mindless , selfish , childish , lying individual , who is nothing but a disgrace to the whole country , and it’s people .

    She constantly shows disregard for everything the country and it’s people stand for .

    She constantly shows ,disrespect, and disdain to the very people who pay her a very handsome salary.

    She constantly acts like a vile , threatening , disgusting ,childish brat, that needs a damn good lesson in manners.

    And to save a long , long , long list of reasons being stated, the question is ,..”Why is she Prime Minister of this country?”

    Isn’t it time we had a reply to this question?

    Any other country would lock her up and throw away the key.

    Why is Australia so tolerant of this degradation.

    Doesn’t anyone in this country have any self-respect any more?

    The mind boggles.

    Take all your stupid legal garbage , and throw it out the door….Blind Freddy can see the obvious.

    Why keep stuffing around with the details.

  5. December 1, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    It’s a fair depiction of the whole affair. You probably need to proof read though for some of the spelling errors and the phrase is “one fell swoop” not “one foul swoop.” Gillard picks up on little errors like that, ie “trust” fund instead of “slush” fund.

    The Labor brand will take a long time to recover but the die hard supporters and especially the feminists will continue to call “bravo” at every screech spewing forth from the Prime Minister’s mouth.

    I’ll support the conservative brand as I’ve always done and am going to place my faith in the Abbott/Bishop combination to restore order and decency to our Government.

    Merry Christmas and thanks for your interesting opinions.

  6. December 1, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    Appreciate the heads up … I do my best on the spell errors – WordPress spell checker is the pits … no excuse really … but if I had a proof reader it would cost me money … this is a labour of free love …

    If you can stand the spello’s and hear the message … all’s well that ends well … thanks for your support and I hope your festive season is safe and merry …

  7. hillbilly33
    December 1, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    We are in the unique position of knowing much of what took place in the Wilson/Gillard/Blewitt/S & G/AWU Fraud scandal 16-21 years ago, and having the results of two investigations, (one in affidavit form) carried out at the time, plus a Stat Dec and parts of statements from others involved, made either at the time or later, but some only becoming publicly available two months ago.

    Gillard’s credibility can be easily shattered and then it’s a whole new ball game. Work through it for yourselves if you wish.

    Gillard has never offered any defence, only three excuses.
    1. I was young and naive. Absolute rubbish and provably so! 2. I acted as a solicitor. 3. I did no wrong.

    As a solicitor, she had cast iron obligations to act in accordance with Rules of Practice as laid down in the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958.

    That did not include creating a conflict of interest by:
    (a) entering a long-term intimate relationship with an employee of her main client:
    (b) failing to inform her main client of that fact;
    (c) as a salaried partner, failing to inform her employers, the equity partnership of S & G:
    (d) failing to act with utmost good faith and make timely disclosure to them that the conflict of interest made them vulnerable in regard to Professional Indemnity.

    Gillard, in later agreeing to the request or “instruction” of her lover Wilson, to assist him with legal advice to set up and incorporate a sham association with the object of enabling him to open and operate unauthorised bank accounts.and again keeping it secret from her principal client and her employers, contravened and breached the same obligations as set out above.

    In addition, Paragraph 11 of the affidavit of Ian Cambridge sworn 19/11/96, sets out in clear detail how the creation of such an entity without the proper authorisation of either the Branch or National Executive of the AWU, clearly breached Rules 51 & 54 of the AWU and was therefore unlawful.

    Gillard has openly admitted to making these two deliberate choices.
    Any wilful and and reckless contravention of the Act under which her Practising Certificate was granted constitutes professional misconduct!
    Is there anyone here who still thinks she did no wrong, and if so, on what grounds?

    Is this the sort of unprofessional conduct that is considered acceptable under Victorian jurisdiction? What more proof is needed?

    Many unlawful and uprofessional actions followed, some of which should certainly be the subject of a full judicial inquiry with possible criminal proceedings to follow!

  8. December 1, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Thanks for the update Hillbilly –

    Constitutional Lawyers would have been looking into this for months – both private and public & would have been going over the what ifs in the eventuality of that and so on … looking for a solution

    Who has jurisdiction – Victoria and/or Western Australia … the Feds … how do you take down a sitting PM legally … does the AG have a role to play and what are the conflicts in that equation … why has nobody ever asked Roxon if she handled the Wilson/Gillard file after the AWU [principal client] transferred their business to Maurice Blackburn …

    We’ve seen what the PM will do to remain in office … and her Ministry is now fully committed and will go down with the ship rather than give her up … the twists and turns still to come make The West Wing pale in comparison.

    Have a great Xmas Hillbilly …

  9. barry
    December 1, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    Putting all legalities aside,( as it seems they have become so complicated , people like Gillard can just about do as they please, if they know the right wording ,know the right people , or know how to conceal the evidence), perhaps a matter of national pride, common decency , and putting the country first, should be enough to remove such an embarrassment as this .

    A Prime Minister , and her cohorts, screeching vile abuse at people for something they have not shown any evidence of doing , and behaving like a rabid dog , cornered with no way out , in the Australian parliament .Snarling , and sneering like nothing ever seen before .

    If this is not enough , and Australia doesn’t have enough national pride , to stop this .

    Then Australia will suffer the indignity of being weak ,foolish , and a laughing stock on the world stage , for many many years to come

  10. December 1, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Have no doubt she will callout the army if she has to … Law and Order will support her as the PM … her position is constitutionally enforced … The Independents might act if it goes that far … but she believes this is her destiny and nothing anyone says or does will convince her otherwise …

  11. barry
    December 1, 2012 at 10:08 pm

    Well, she , and her cohorts sabotaged the constitution. And we have to live by it.
    Seems she is holding a gun to our heads .

    If that is the case , then all this writing is just a waste of time , as it appears the people have already succumbed to their fate .

    Goodbye and good luck .

    I have no desire to read nor write , when the fate is obviously already decided.

  12. barry
    December 1, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    Please unsubscribe me , as I do not know how , thank you

  13. December 2, 2012 at 7:56 am

    Barry – to unsubscribe use the link at the bottom of the e-mail advice sent with all Blog Update posts …

    Thanks for your thoughts. Merry Xmas …

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