|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 29, 2012 8:23:06 GMT 10
Nope, I take it back. We do get to see the transcript for ourselves this time. Here's the evidence that the australian and the liberal party decided to drop on us on the last parliamentary sitting day of 2012: www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/young-gillard-answers-the-boss/story-fng5kxvh-1226526112699PETER GORDON: All right, well, let's talk about the AWU Workplace Reform Association Account. That account, as you've said, is an account which was the account belonging to an incorporated association by the same name which was incorporated by Slater & Gordon at (Bruce) Wilson's, on Wilson's instructions following your advice to him which you described earlier.
JULIA GILLARD: That's right.
PG: And that happened in or about mid-1992.
JG: That's right.
PG: And last Monday I think you gave to Paul Mulvaney a follow-up which demonstrates that Slater & Gordon had drafted model rules for, for that, had submitted those rules to the relevant Western Australian government authority, that there'd been a letter from the authority suggesting that it might be a trade union and therefore ineligible for incorporation under that legislation, and that we had prepared a response submitted on Wilson's instructions to that authority suggesting that in fact it wasn't a trade union and arguing the case for its incorporation. My recollection is that all of that happened in or about mid-1992. Is that right?
JG: I wouldn't want to be held to the dates without looking at the file, but whatever the dates the file shows are the right dates, so . . .
PG: Yes. And to the extent that work was done on that file in relation to that it was done by you?
JG: That's right.
PG: And did you get advice from anyone else in the firm in relation to any of those matters?
JG: No I didn't.
PG: Did Tony Lang have anything to do with the model rules or the drafting of them?
JG: No, I obtained, I had just in my own personal precedent file a set of rules for Socialist Forum which is an incorporated association in which I'm personally involved. Tony Lang and I drew those rules some years ago. Tony more than me. And I've just kept them hanging around as something I cut and paste from for drafting purposes, and I obtained, I don't quite recall how now but I obtained the model rules under the WA act and I must have done the drafting just relying on those two sources. I don't have any recollection of sitting down with Tony or any other practitioner and talking through the draft of the rules.
PG: Do you recall whether when it was necessary to argue the case with the, with the relevant Western Australian authority, whether you consulted anyone else in the firm as to what would or would not get, become acceptable or appropriate?
JG: I once again don't recall talking to anybody else in the firm about it.
PG: Beyond that, and it seems from the file that after that letter it was successfully accepted as an incorporated association and duly was created and presumably accounts were set up. I should ask did we have anything to do with the setting up of the accounts or was that done by the officers of the incorporated association?
JG: Slater & Gordon didn't have anything, did not have anything to do with setting up bank accounts for that association. We attended to the incorporation.
PG: Can I ask you then following the last thing that we did to setting up the incorporation, which appears from the file to be the letter arguing that it ought to be not construed as a trade union, did you have anything personally to do with that incorporated association afterwards?
JG: No I did not.
PG: Right, to the best of your knowledge did anyone at Slater & Gordon?
JG: To my knowledge no one at Slater & Gordon had anything to do with it post that time. Maybe it's just me, but I'm underwhelmed. Another crucial piece of evidence that has to be introduced with fanfare and hype to be of any interest at all.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Nov 29, 2012 8:35:42 GMT 10
So what's her big sin? To argue that an Association as a legal entity is not a trade union?
How many companies have trusts, holding accounts, and subsidiaries that are all considered separate legal entities. Just check how Google avoids tax in Australia. Or the Catholic Church and its hundreds of brotherhoods, institutions, schools and charities which Pell can claim he has no control over as they are legally separate.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 29, 2012 12:22:38 GMT 10
"To argue that an Association as a legal entity is not a trade union?"
The term "damp squib" comes to mind, for some reason.
I don't think the purpose of any of this week's theater has been to prove anything - it's been to make this a story, get it on the front pages, so that it can be referred to over the christmas break and people can talk about it. People who don't pay attention will hear the allegations and assume that there must be something to them. It's a smear, in other words - throw enough mud and some of it will always stick.
If the election were happening in a few weeks, this could be effective. But I doubt we'll be having an early election. Despite the sound and fury, the government seems to be quietly getting on with passing legislation, so they're hardly going to throw that away.
So ... are we out of "questions to be answered" yet? Or will we be having a new set starting tomorrow? I'm tempted to start compiling the "smoking guns" that were quietly dropped after being debunked. It's been interesting to see a conspiracy theory evolve so rapidly, in such a coordinated and public way.
What has been gratifying has been seeing the libs completely give up on the carbon tax as an attack strategy. Not a peep. That campaign appears to be genuinely over now. Only 5 months into its implementation, the libs have now completely stopped mentioning the carnage it's supposed to have caused. Ok, sure, every now and then a company closes shop (as about ~7000 or so do every year) and they all shout "carbon tax!", but they've dropped it as a pro-active talking point.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Nov 29, 2012 12:34:44 GMT 10
The Coalition's strategy is so transparent it's a bit like an episode of Absolute Power. I wonder if they are being advised by Prentiss McCabe? No, he'd have been more successful. Honey-trap first bloke Tim with a transsexual lover.
Batts, BER, Rudd's second coming, Emerson, Slipper, Carbon Tax, economic meltdown, and now the AWU 'scandal'.
What a circus of mediocrity and fluff.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 29, 2012 15:10:09 GMT 10
Righto, then. Getting to the nub of the AWU scandalThe oz wants to spell it out for us, because we're clearly not getting it - what with all the last straw claims that didn't break anything. That article tries to claim that nobody REALLY believed that jules knew what the fund was ultimately used for. Nobody, that is, except most of NEWS and the liberal party (under priviledge, of course). Not mentioned anywhere in that article - the slanders about bank cheques, 5000$ deposits, renovations, mortgages, powers of attorney, what gillard knew when, or what she should or shouldn't have told the police, why she left the company, the "missing" files that weren't, the decision to record her exit interview, wild claims by fraudsters ... all the previous attacks which failed, I mean. According to the australian, today, the "nub" of the story (at least for today) is this: It is not suggested the Prime Minister knew about the third of these “purposes” - the diversion of money by Mr Wilson.
The key point is whether she knew that the real purpose of the association was not workplace safety. Things are not going well, it seems. I don't think that bar can go any lower than that. It also needs to be pointed out that we're basically back to where we were all those months ago, before NEWS decided to go on the warpath. We didn't need any of the last few months' hullabaloo to "ask" that "question". Nice work, guys. I think that falling back on what was being "asked" a year ago suggests that nobody's actually managed to find anything incriminating. And I don't believe for a second that if blewitt had supplied any useful information at all, we'd have heard about it this week in parliament. We haven't heard a peep = he hasn't said anything the oppo could use. All that noise, for nuthin'. Oh - and these same institutions also report on climate science.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 29, 2012 15:31:48 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by angra on Nov 29, 2012 16:13:41 GMT 10
Gillard challenged Abbott to tongue-lashing at 20 paces duel in QT.
Abbott was flustered, nervous and spoke haltingly - pausing between every 3 words and waving his arms up and down like he was working little bell bars.
Julia gave better than she got - I wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of her in a court of law. I'd give the bout to Julia around 10 points to 3.
PS. I keep getting Catptchad when logging in. The last twisted phrase to type in was Fuzzy Wuzzy - the one before that was What Now!
|
|
|
Post by angra on Nov 29, 2012 16:23:30 GMT 10
Ooops - think I meant bar bells - those weight thingies you lift up and down.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Nov 29, 2012 16:35:48 GMT 10
Fairfax is behaving petulantly rather like Blot. Despite the letter from the PM, they still have the guts of original story on-line with these bits still in...
"Julia Gillard enabled the incorporation of a union slush fund from which her then boyfriend later stole hundreds of thousands of dollars by formally denying to authorities that it was a trade union organisation."
Wrong.
"A newly released document confirms that Ms Gillard wrote to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission stating the fund, the Australian Workplace Reform Association, was not a trade union organisation. Her assertion came in mid-1992, after the commission initially rejected the association's incorporation because ''it might be a trade union and therefore ineligible''.
Wrong. The transcript shows that she said it was not a trade union (not 'not a trade union organisation'). The Jesuits are not a church, but may be a church organisation.
"The revelations contradict Ms Gillard's claims at media conferences and in Parliament that she played a limited role in the formation of the association, from which Bruce Wilson and his crony Ralph Blewitt later misappropriated more than $400,000."
Wrong again. And note the last clause which enforces the innuendo that Gillard somehow benefited or conspired.
MSM journo's just can't accept that are ever wrong can they?
Pretentious, self-important bulls*** artists.
Grounds for a defamation suit?
|
|
|
Post by angra on Nov 29, 2012 18:49:17 GMT 10
Blot claims Abbott won the Gillard/Abbott QT duel.
"AWU scandal - Abbott flays Gillard as “shonky lawyer”"
No Andrew, you obviously didn't view it, did you? No one else agrees - even your own colleagues.
He says...
"Gillard gave enough of the victim narrative - she’s facing “smears” - and sounded strong enough to hearten the true believers. But how dodgy and mendacious she seems".
Andrew - look at the facts (I know that is difficult for you) even News Limited gives the points to Gillard.
Your sucking up to Tony knows no bounds. Why is this?
Crap, crap and more crap - why Blot should pose as a 'journalist' is beyond me. He is simply an Abbott PR stooge. Simply proved.
Blot again shows that he is a complete disgrace to the name of 'journalism'.
A Blot on the landscape indeed (apologies to Tom Sharpe).
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 29, 2012 18:50:31 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by angra on Nov 29, 2012 19:12:44 GMT 10
Bring on media regulation. The more they open their mouths or exercise their keyboards, the more the argument for accountability is strengthened.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 29, 2012 19:28:43 GMT 10
"Blot claims Abbott won the Gillard/Abbott QT duel"
I think the point of the overheated tantrums from the oppo this week is so that they can now be reported as "the opposition says". The oppo gets to say the stuff under privilege, and now NEWS has a nice collection of quotes to be going on with, without fear of being sued for defamation ("your honour, I'm not SAYING the PM is a criminal who benefited from a fraud ... I'm just quoting the the honorable member for ...").
It still now just comes down to what was already being alleged months ago - that the thing was registered, that gillard (seems to have) filled in the name on the front page of the form and vouched for its conformance with relevant legislation, and that's it (and we're still waiting for somebody to explain why it wasn't a valid association - no, really, where's the beef? If half of your case is the association was mis-registered, surely it's not too much to ask how it contravened the legislation? Am I being too demanding?).
Yes, bolt, the PM is being smeared, personally, in the service of a political party and a political outcome. It's that simple. Even better, though ... I don't think it's going to work.
Gillard was scammed, along with everyone else. We know. That doesn't mean that she did anything wrong, and it's a heck of a stretch to say that she was a "shonky lawyer" because of it. Just like it's a stretch to suggest that bishop is responsible for any asbestos-related deaths in her professional career.
I'm still astonished by how little impact blewitt's "tell-all" has had on this story. I reckon a few people must be very disappointed. So many blockbuster revelations, and they're still peddling the same claim they were 6 months ago. They've managed to prove precisely nothing new.
Now ... there's still that little case in the NSW supreme court next monday. Kroger v Ramjan.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 30, 2012 22:55:45 GMT 10
Oh, for god's sake. Grow up, all of you. Even as PM, Tony Abbott would pursue Julia Gillard over AWU affair TONY Abbott has vowed to continue his pursuit of Julia Gillard over the AWU slush fund scandal in government if Labor fails to establish a judicial inquiry into the matter.
The Opposition Leader confirmed a future Coalition government would, if necessary, establish the proposed inquiry in government.
“The short answer is yes,” he told reporters in Brisbane today.
“But why should the decent honest unionists and the decent honest union officials of this country have to wait 12 months? Why shouldn't the government, which says that it is the workers' friend, try to ensure that the workers of Australia aren't being ripped off by corrupt officials?
“Let's have the inquiry, let's have it now, let's get to the bottom of things. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide she won't run scared from this inquiry.”
He maintained Ms Gillard “has provided false information to the West Australian Corporate Affairs Commission, and it is unlawful to provide false information to the West Australian CAC”. No. Abbott is not going to "pursue" gillard if he wins government. He might try, but surely a grown-up will explain a few things to him first. For one thing, it's just a witch hunt, and any idiot surely realises by now that there's no evidence that gillard actually did anything wrong. The story is embarrassing, but not incriminating, and that's what the inquiry will report. There's just no justification for blowing a bucket of money like that. But the real reason that tony abbott will not use the executive to "pursue" an ex-MP over a 20-year-old story that shows no promise of finding anything worthy ... is that he can more or less count on the ALP doing the same thing to his people the next time they win office. Surely SOMEBODY is going to explain THAT to him. If they'd wanted to, the ALP could have re-opened the AWB case, and REALLY taken the gloves off. They could have inquired into some of those "helping hands" that certain companies got. They could have even gone after finding out what cabinet were REALLY told about iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" - and I reckon that story's potentially a heck of a lot more interesting than who filled out a form to register an association. I'm astonished that abbott would even joke about misusing the power of the government against a political opponent's private life like that. If he thinks that's the sort of thing a government should be doing, then let's hear it. Then we can decide if that sort of petty dictator should be given power.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 1, 2012 8:45:54 GMT 10
For pete's sake. 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. Why does anyone take paul kelly seriously?
|
|