By Kevin Glancy

As far as the AWU scandal is concerned, the main game currently relates to Gillard’s participation in the incorporation of the non-authorised Australian Workers Union slush fund in Western Australia in 1992

The fact that Gillard participated has been clearly established – she advised Wilson and Blewitt and filled in the appropriate forms.

It appears that Ralph Blewitt presented the forms for approval however, when the legitimacy of the application was questioned by the W.A. Corporate Affairs Commission, Gillard then personally argued the case and ultimately gained approval from the Commissioner.

Although no clear admissions have been made, Gillard has not denied that she participated in this aspect of the incorporation.

Now at this point it may be that Gillard argued the case based on what she knew about her boyfriend’s intent at the time. However, this is almost irrelevant because as a lawyer what she did know was that the entity was not authorised by the AWU and yet Gillard persisted in pursuing the incorporation of the AWU Workplace Reform Association.  She also kept it secret from her fellow partners at Slater & Gordon to ensure that no one knew what she was doing.

What makes Gillard appear highly suspect is her gall. Having used whatever legal skill she had as a lawyer to convince the Commissioner of the integrity of the application she has, when questioned recently, accused the Commissioner of being responsible and at fault for accepting her ‘invalid’ application.

It’s like saying that; ‘Sure I lied on my insurance application, I know I said it was a second hand Ford when it was a Ferrari but it’s your fault for not spotting my dishonesty.’

What is also extraordinary is the failure of Julia Gillard to answer questions in Parliament with a simple yes or no. A huge mea culpa and some honesty from Gillard would have probably ended the game before it even started. However, her evasiveness and attempts to smear anyone who asks questions has fuelled the fire and reveals an approach more akin to a guilty person reacting with much to hide.

If there was one glaring example of Gillard’s deliberate and evasive behaviour in parliament this would be it. It occurred last week during Question Time when Deputy Opposition Leader, Julie Bishop held up a copy of the application which clearly showed Gillard’s handwriting and asked her one simple question.– did you write this – yes or no?

Gillard completely ignored the question and instead embarked on yet another irrelevant excursion to abuse Bishop and anyone else within firing range. Perhaps more tellingly, Gillard did not answer the question with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ and in that failure revealed her guilt.

The stupidity of her approach given that it was clearly her handwriting and a simple yes would have sufficed is glaringly obvious.

It was a typical Gillard response and like so many other non-answers provided by her it is exactly the reason why so many people outside of parliament are determined to get to the truth.

What she fails to understand is that it is not the Opposition she needs to worry about but others that she has directly or indirectly insulted. People such as former associates, former colleagues and serious investigative journalists like Hedley Thomas, Mark Baker and Michael Smith. Each day another piece of the puzzle is being completed and putting aside the current Victorian Police investigation, these people will get to the truth and Gillard will ultimately fall.

And when she does it will be in absolute disgrace. She will have the dubious distinction of being the first female Prime Minister and the worst, most dishonest Prime Minister in Australian political history and quite possibly a proven criminal as well.

Julie Bishop, Deputy Opposition Leader, outlines the case against Gillard with regards to that incorporation in the simplest of terms.

Her advice offended against section 8 of the WA Associations Incorporation Act 1987, which provides that an association cannot have a name “likely to mislead” as to the object or purpose of the association – it was a slush fund for elections, not about safe workplaces.

The name was also “identical with or likely to be confused with” the name of another entity, in this case the AWU.

There were only two members of the association, Wilson and Blewitt, and not the requisite “more than five members”.

Not surprisingly, the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs questioned the application.

Gillard wrote to the commissioner “arguing for its incorporation”… Using the authority of her standing as a partner in a law firm, Gillard was able to convince the commissioner that the association had the authority of the AWU, that it was for the purpose of workplace safety, and that it had more than five members.

It is an offence under section 43 of the act to knowingly make false and misleading statements.

Once the association was registered, it is alleged that Wilson fraudulently obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars from building companies, who believed they were dealing with the AWU, for workplace safety and training purposes.

The fraudulent activities continued with various twists and turns but the existence of this slush fund was not detected until 1996.

The federal opposition contends that in relation to the setting up of the incorporation, Wilson, Blewitt and Gillard have a case to answer under Section 43 of the act.

Section 170 of the Criminal Code is also relevant, which provides that “any person who being required … to give information … knowingly gives information .. that is false in a material particular is guilty of a crime … “

Section 409 of the Criminal Code specifies the criminal act of fraud.

What’s the next question for the Prime Minister?

Julia Gillard has continually stressed that she played little or no part in this scandal. Perhaps the next explanation that she will need to provide is why did she attend and argue on behalf of Bruce Wilson at meeting of mining workers in Boulder W.A. on Saturday May 16^th 1992?

At the meeting the impression given to those attending, was that she was a lawyer/partner representing Slater & Gordon in Melbourne. Putting aside the legitimacy of that aspect, given her secrecy in hiding her Bruce Wilson work from her employer, she argued that workers should provide authority for her boyfriend to transfer their Fatality Fund from the office in Boulder to his own office in Perth and to in effect, manage those funds.

Gillard’s presence alongside Bruce Wilson provided him with credibility. Bearing in mind the workers were already suspicious about his dealings with their money. Gillard’s persuasive tactics worked a treat as she reassured the retrenched miners that their money would be safe.

The Fund money was subsequently transferred to Perth.

What happened to the money after the transfer is still a mystery and one that has been speculated on for many years. One thing is certain the miners did not see any of it after that transfer.