By Kevin Glancy

Labor’s Attorney General, Nicola Roxon has claimed that Julia Gillard’s actions related to the AWU scandal were neither inappropriate nor illegal and that she did nothing wrong.

Contrary to Roxon’s claim, there’s little doubt that at the very least, Gillard acted inappropriately but as to whether she did anything wrong, as in illegal, it is difficult to ascertain.  

Gillard has a history of not answering questions and indeed, of lying, the AWU scandal is a case in point. It’s difficult to get to the truth. It was even impossible for her employer Slater & Gordon to get to the truth back when the fraud was in full flight. Gillard did the same thing then when questioned as she is doing now.

Despite two press conferences there have been very few answers provided by Gillard.

Gillard has a certain right to not answer questions that may incriminate but by the same token, she cannot expect or demand that the matter be concluded without those answers.

Throughout both conferences, Gillard has employed various tactics to minimise exposure. She is a highly skilled liar and has contradicted previous statements that she has made on a number of occasions.

Gillard seems to have an intimate recollection when questions are harmless, even spelling complicated names of people from the same period, but suffers from instant memory loss the moment an answer to a question might be incriminating.

She uses the ‘I can’t remember’ response with ridicule suggesting that it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to remember that kind of obscure information.  She hopes that the person asking the question won’t remind her that it is not obscure when it relates to an intimate four year relationship that she had with Bruce Wilson and that the purchase of a property would have been a serious and memorable matter for any couple.

Then of course there is her stock answer – ‘I have already dealt with that matter… next question’. This non-response is delivered with arrogance and used to cover the fact that on the previous occasion she didn’t answer the question satisfactorily but hopes that this will do. She has been using that kind of subterfuge and distraction tactic a lot in parliament lately in response to Julie Bishop’s questions.

Another Gillard press conference tactic is to use a smear to accuse others of using a smear. Its aim is to distract, to disarm and avoid the question and to place any accusation or criticism beneath contempt. It’s ugly and does not befit the conduct of a Prime Minister. Gillard is the queen of smear and there are many examples of that tactic.

Even today in parliament she used the smear option by referring to Tony Abbott as ‘gutless’ for not asking questions about the subject when, if he did ask questions she would smear him for doing so.  Abbott chose to ignore her as you would anyone using the childish name calling routine. I’m sure that there are many women who see Gillard as an embarrassment to their gender.

She has at times defined herself as the victim, questioning the justification of trawling though these matters for the last twenty years. It’s the ‘Why are people so unkind? – Poor me,’ defence.  It’s an exaggeration of course, no such thing has happened.

The reason that the issue has re-emerged is because Gillard has continued to stonewall and money is still missing. Her former partner Bruce Wilson and his mate Ralph Blewitt are yet to be brought to justice. 

You cannot avoid the fact that whether she gained financially or not, Julia Gillard did assist them in perpetrating a major crime. She provided the tools and when she had an opportunity to stop the fraud she continued to remain silent and by her silence allowed the theft to continue.  

According to investigative journalist Hedley Thomas, Gillard’s response yesterday, as to why she didn’t report the fraud, is far from satisfactory. Here’s what he wrote in The Australian.

“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 (second) 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 widespread public knowledge of Wilson’s fraud is backed by numerous union documents, sworn affidavits and even newspaper clippings from that actual period…

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)?…

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…

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…

This is a serious case of deception on Gillard’s part because by not opening a file at Slater & Gordon, neither her colleagues, the AWU, nor the company had any way of knowing that the crook they were reading about in the papers, Bruce Wilson, had a second slush fund and one that had been set up by Gillard who was a partner in their law firm.  

Had Gillard followed standard legal practice and opened a file, the second fund would not have been so damaging. It can only be concluded that Gillard was deliberate in her actions to conceal the work she was doing for her boyfriend. Her excuse that she didn’t open a file because she was doing work for nothing doesn’t wash. Files are opened for a multitude of reasons and they are not contingent on money being involved. Her undisclosed actions also meant that Slater & Gordon had to relinquish a major client.  

The AWU was an important source of income for her colleagues but because of the conflict Gillard had created the company was damaged economically. For that alone you would expect some contrition on her part.

Gillard has only herself to blame for the suspicion that still prevails. She has never provided a full account of her actions or explained her part in providing her boyfriend with the means to obtain huge sums of money under false pretences.

Even back in 1995, having betrayed her employer and her colleagues at Slater & Gordon, there was still no contrition or any remorse.

Gillard: A Career Built on Betrayal

Of course, why would you expect anything else?  Gillard’s career has been built on betrayal. She would later become the Prime Minister of Australia by committing another act of betrayal against her own leader, Kevin Rudd. This was followed by yet another act of betrayal when, in order to gain the keys to the Prime Minister’s office with the help of the Greens, she broke her promise made to the people of Australia – “There’ll be no carbon tax under the government I lead.”

When you look at the available transcript of the ‘exit interview’ in 1995, prior to her demise at Slater & Gordon, her attitude when questioned by Peter Gordon was a case of “Oh well, shit happens and anyway I can’t remember much – so get over it.”

Yet this was at a time when the fraud was still fresh – in fact she was still a partner at Slater & Gordon and news of the theft was just beginning to surface.

Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop (a lawyer) suspects that Julia Gillard deliberately did not open a file when she helped set up the slush fund because she wanted to hide the fact it would be used to ‘siphon’ money.

Julie Bishop also a lawyer who practised in W.A. claims that Julia Gillard had set up an ‘unauthorised association’ that was in breach of West Australian laws. The illegal Association was incorporated in W.A.by Julia Gillard through the W.A Corporate Affairs Commission.

Apart from the fact that Gillard misled the Commission on the nature of the Association, Gillard did not even check to see if the AWU had passed the required resolution in order for the Association to be incorporated. Gillard knew that her boyfirend was only an office bearer at branch level and not in a position to authorise such a fund.

Gillard does not deny the existence of a letter that she wrote in response to a request by the Corporate Affairs Commissioner to provide further confirmation of the true nature of the Association that she was seeking to incorporate. It’s believed that the letter confirms that Gillard did not reveal the truth. But in response to the question Gillard simply says, ‘Well I haven’t got a copy – have you?”

Even Gillard’s press conference, (26/11/12) was a fraud, timed to deliberately avoid scrutiny in the upcoming parliamentary Question Time. She knew that to lie in parliament would be a serious matter. When faced with questions in parliament later her stock answer was ‘I’ve already dealt with that matter earlier.’

Of course she hadn’t dealt with it at all, having avoided providing answers earlier during the press conference. Lies come so easily to Gillard.

During the press conference there was not one iota of humility for her part in the crime. Not even a; ‘Look! I made some mistakes back then and it is not a chapter of my life that I am proud of but I also learnt a lot and I became a better person…blah blah blah.”  

Gillard’s defence is to attack, weave and deceive and avoid taking any responsibility for her own actions. We have all made mistakes yet seemingly Gillard could not even admit to having made perhaps, just one little mistake.

When asked about misleading the WA Corporate Affairs Commission, Gillard’s response was to remove the onus from herself to the Commission saying in effect, “Well! You’d better ask them – that’s their responsibility.”  As if the false application she made to the Commission played no part in the deception.  It’s the kind of response you might expect from a school girl who has been caught stealing a cream bun and not  a mature response you would expect from a woman who is Prime Minister.

Sam Tough, the Legal Officer in the WA Police Fraud Squad made notes with regard to his interview with Thiess executives. At the time Thiess was one of the many companies that had been coerced into providing funds for the association Gillard helped to set up. In a statement provided by Thiess executives they said that had they known that it was a slush fund, they would have never provided any money.

Gillard knew that it was a slush fund very early on but did not report it to her employer, the AWU or the police. Her silence allowed the fraud to continue and it has been estimated that the equivalent of one million dollars in today’s value was coerced from unsuspecting companies. Her insolence and feigned outrage at today’s press conference revealed a lot about the character of Julia Gillard.

On display was unbridled arrogance as she avoided answers or rammed an inconsequential answer at the gallery usually over some minor detail that revealed little of the truth.

The two press conferences she has held on the subject have been misleading and while they may have satisfied the dominant left-wing media, there are still many questions to be answered.

Significantly, during today’s press conference (26/11/12) Gillard was asked about the Power of Attorney document that she signed. This was an important subject related to the purchase of a house in Fitzroy by her then boyfriend, Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt. The circumstances surrounding her signature on that document are currently under investigation by the Victorian Police. 

Her response was an instant, ‘I have done nothing wrong’. This is another of her standard ‘school girl’ responses when she is on dangerous ground. When she was then asked if she signed the document in front of Ralph Blewitt she ignored the question by stating that she had signed many documents and could hardly be expected to remember this particular one. This was a critical question and to avoid answering it yet again, Gillard employed the ‘I can’t remember’ response. For Gillard to sign  and witness the document she would have had to have flown to W.A to see Ralph Blewitt – again something you might expect her to remember. Not least because of the serious legal consequences she will face if she did not make that flight. 

This particular Power of Attorney was related to her boyfriend’s purchase of a house and it wasn’t just some third party event as she had a particular interest and there are other documents that implicate Gillard. She even concedes that there are twelve documents featuring her name.

More tellingly, last week in answer to a question, Gillard denied having any knowledge about details surrounding the purchase of the same property. Today she changed her story agreeing that she did sign a Power of Attorney in relation to the house purchase.  According to Bruce Wilson when interviewed on the 7.30 Report ABC (27/11/12) far from not knowing anything about the property Gillard attended the auction when the house was purchased and stayed in the house occasionally. More Gillard lies exposed.

But it’s no wonder that she ignored this question because it has been alleged that she did not sign the Power of Attorney in front of Ralph Blewitt. If this is the case, she has broken the law under Section 83A of the Crimes Act Victoria. That section deals with the ‘Creation of False Documents’ and if proven the perpetrator, in this case Gillard, can be imprisoned for up to ten years.

Gillard signed the Power of Attorney giving the impression that she was with Ralph Blewitt, the subject of the document at the time of signing and that she witnessed his signature in person.    

Now as per Section 83A – a false document can be ‘one that purports to have been made or altered on a date on which, or at a place at which, or otherwise in circumstances in which, it was not in fact made.’

It has been alleged that the date of the document was false because at the time Gillard was in Victoria and Blewitt was in W.A and the document was back dated. It’s believed that Ralph Blewitt has provided police with details surrounding that document and has stated that Gillard did not execute that Power of Attorney legally, because she wasn’t present to witness his signature..

It’s also worthwhile noting, whilst not wishing to paint Ralph Blewitt as a victim that, given his recent statements, it suggests that Wilson and Gillard conspired to set him up and the Power of Attorney was part of that set-up. It was easy for the pair as Blewitt was living in W.A, while Gillard and Wilson resided in Victoria. If Blewitt is being truthful, he claims that he did not receive any money from the sale of that property, gained no financial advantage and only signed the Power of Attorney as a means of helping his mate’s activities remain concealed. It also suggests that Gillard’s role was far more involved than she has indicated.

So when Gillard, Roxon and other Labor luminaries say there is no allegation they are denying the fact that there is one and it’s a serious allegation at that. Further, just because Gillard will not answer questions about that allegation doesn’t mean that she is innocent.

As far as Labor is concerned, an allegation doesn’t exist unless Gillard says it does. It’s the kind of arrogance typical of Labor when dealing with any criticism.

Of course Labor’s gall has no limits.

Today (27/11/12), Labor Minister, Anthony Albanese breached the bounds of absurdity by smearing Julie Bishop because she spent ten minutes with a crook. ‘Meeting with a scumbag’ was his reference. Bishop had met briefly with Ralph Blewitt to see whether he had any documents that would shed light on the matter. Sounds like an appropriate step given the circumstances and the fact that he was involved in the fraud.

Apparently, Labor consider that Bishop’s meeting was a far greater crime than their own leader’s intimate, 4 year relationship with another crook Bruce Wilson, during which time she assisted him so he could be a crook.