Gillard's AWU/Wilson past about to haunt her?

harmesy 37

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Posts
3,116
Likes
716
Location
Princes Park
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
CFC, Bluebaggers, Blues, No EPLteam
Todays revelations are pretty paltry. Gillard is guilty of defining a body that was not a trade union as not a trade union. Yikes. Can't. See. The. Illegality.

And todays revelation, courtesy of ex Lib member Barker whose life seems to be devoted to this minor incident in Gillard's past, are such a massive come down on where the issue supposedly was going four days ago. Back then Gillard was about to tumble due to hard proof that would connect to her to nothing less than fraud. Didn't happen. Still has happened. Still tumble weed. Today was just a little freddo frog conciliation prize to the loser.

What I liked most about the week was watching Abbott hide behind Bishop, whose position caved in so badly they had to bench her today and have Pyne run with the left overs to save any face. And what a job he did!



Until there is bite and not just bark, until some real evidence can be produced that actually backs up the innuendo and connects Gillard to a real crime or wrong doing, there is just nothing here to take seriously.

I find it really, really sad that people like you can't rise above your party allegiance and realise that a prime minister (it was bad enough when it was just a minister in thomson) took action that directly resulted in fraudulent activity and money laundering.



"Real evidence" -exit interview, her reference to the letter to wa commission, her comments repeatedly being discredited by documented facts. When you and your mates repeatedly say "smoking gun" - do you know how childish that sounds?


It sounds as about as childish as a leader (Trained by a UK spin doctor McTernan) to say "sleaze and bottom of barrel" more than 50 times in question time.The question I have for you is - who is really running this country? Gillard or McTernan?



Also of importance is this:

Did you realise that your cherished leader effectively wants to eradicate free speech? unless that free speech benefits the labor party that is.
Do you agree with that comrade? soviet russia's freedom of the press works really well, eh! That is the perfect model.

I quote:re the Ficklestein inquiry

"Any regulation of the media that blights the free flow of information and opinion is a form of official state censorship."

"Given that the government is contemplating taking the unprecedented step of regulating the media - which is usually done only in autocracies and Third World oppressive regimes."






http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...l-go-to-the-dogs/story-e6frerc6-1226457673557

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...inquirys-secrecy/story-e6frg71x-1226452095360
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

harmesy 37

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Posts
3,116
Likes
716
Location
Princes Park
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
CFC, Bluebaggers, Blues, No EPLteam
I'm not saying Labor is competitive in terms of winning another term but if the Libs don't do something about the unprecedented unpopularity of their leadership then they might find themselves trying to manage a minority government of their own.

I dunno about you but I'll be eagerly awaiting the next round of polling. I don't think this has played as well to the broader electorate as it played to the echo chamber you inhabit!
John McTernan is that you?

Spoken word by word as John McTernan would want you to. Let me guess Abbott is "negative" "has no plan for the future", indulges in "sleaze and Misogyny". He is the devil, right? Has McTernan convinced you like he has convinced me?
 

Upton Sinclair

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Posts
5,441
Likes
2,033
AFL Club
Collingwood
The story for which Media Watch criticised me ran on August 26, 2003. The headline was “Abbott Set up Slush Fund to Ruin Hanson”. In the interview which led to the story, Abbott, then the Minister for Workplace Relations in the Howard Government, confirmed the fund he set up, called (not at all ironically) Australians for Honest Politics, had raised about $100,000 from anonymous donors to pay for legal actions against Pauline Hanson and her party, One Nation.

Abbott further confirmed he had organised a separate "donor" to support a One Nation dissident, Terry Sharples, in seeking an injunction to block One Nation from receiving public electoral funds.

Mr Abbott said the money was promised to cover Mr Sharples if the case failed and costs were awarded against him.

Abbott acknowledged he’d organised a team of lawyers who would represent Mr Sharples without charge, and then a second team after Mr Sharples sacked the first.

To quote further from that story: “Mr Abbott also acknowledged that he had at one time instructed his lawyers to offer Mr Sharples $10,000 of his own money if he would stop pursuing him for money to cover his huge court costs.

“He said his $10,000 offer to Mr Sharples was made in light of a disputed agreement between them that Mr Sharples would be covered by an open-ended indemnity for the costs of action against Hanson and One Nation.”

Abbott insisted the whole thing was done at his own initiative, and that neither John Howard nor anyone else in the government had been involved.

Said Abbott in our interview: “There was myself and two other trustees. We raised ... it may not have been $100,000 but it was certainly close to $100,000 and the job of Australians For Honest Politics was to fund court cases against One Nation.”

He said most of the money had been spent trying, unsuccessfully, to get another One Nation defector, Hanson's former private secretary Barbara Hazelton, to take legal action to stop the payment of $470,000 in public election funding, following the failure of similar action by Mr Sharples.

There was more to the story. You get the drift, though. And the irony, too, given that Abbott — who set up his slush fund 14 years ago — is now leading the call for the removal of Prime Minister Julia Gillard for her role in setting up a slush fund 20 years ago.
http://www.theglobalmail.org/mobile/feature/in-politics-slush-happens/505/
 

Upton Sinclair

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Posts
5,441
Likes
2,033
AFL Club
Collingwood
John McTernan is that you?

Spoken word by word as John McTernan would want you to. Let me guess Abbott is "negative" "has no plan for the future", indulges in "sleaze and Misogyny". He is the devil, right? Has McTernan convinced you like he has convinced me?
Yawn... we probably don't watch/read the same media sources. I have NFI what you're on about. Let's just bump this next week & see what the polls say then, shall we?
 

Dry Rot

My hat is better than yours
Joined
Feb 21, 2002
Posts
36,402
Likes
8,339
Location
Dead Snow of Norway
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Thread starter #1,580
An interesting view re Gillards dealings with WA Corp Affairs

Real issue is whether the PM misled
  • BY:CHRIS MERRITT, LEGAL AFFAIRS EDITOR
  • From:The Australian
  • November 30, 2012 12:00AM
  • MUCH of the media has missed the point in the latest developments in the Australian Workers Union slush fund affair.
It really does not matter that we now know Julia Gillard had no role in establishing a bank account in the name of the AWU Workplace Reform Association. Close followers of the issue have always accepted the Prime Minister's assurances that she had no involvement in the workings of the association beyond advice on its incorporation. The key issue is whether the Prime Minister, who denies all wrongdoing, misled the authorities in Western Australia about the true purpose of that association when she was a lawyer at Slater & Gordon in the 1990s. Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten, a former national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, has described the association as "inappropriate" and "unauthorised"...

Yesterday we learned that she argued in a letter to the West Australian Corporate Affairs Commissioner that the association "ought not to be construed as a trade union". Was it a union association or not? The significance of this issue is profound: it is unlawful under the West Australian Associations Incorporation Act for an association to be named in a way likely to mislead as to the object or purpose. This affair has thus reached the point where the facts that have come to light raise the question of whether an unlawful act has occurred. The material that has been unearthed by The Australian's national chief correspondent, Hedley Thomas, shows that the association was tangled in a web of real and false purposes

It is now known that the Prime Minister argued to the West Australian authorities, who initially ruled the association ineligible for incorporation, that the association was not a trade union. Acting on instructions from her then client and boyfriend, AWU boss Bruce Wilson, she drew up a constitution and rules that emphasised its purpose was the promotion of workplace safety. Yet it is known that Ms Gillard later told her partners at Slater & Gordon that the purpose of the association was to provide a re-election "slush fund" for a select group of union officials. She argues that its purpose was to support the re-election of officials who would work for workplace safety.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...er-the-pm-misled/story-e6frg9uf-1226527044074
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,536
Likes
1,667
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
What are you suggesting is the significance of not consulting the firm's expert re association? What was it about the rules that created exposure for the firm? What was it about the details of that particular association that made it susceptible to misuse as a result of anything S&G had done?
That Peter Gordon asked her to put on record why she hadn't. As to the rest, couldn't say - rules etc wasn't discussed in that published part of the transcript.
 

harmesy 37

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Posts
3,116
Likes
716
Location
Princes Park
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
CFC, Bluebaggers, Blues, No EPLteam
Yawn... we probably don't watch/read the same media sources. I have NFI what you're on about. Let's just bump this next week & see what the polls say then, shall we?

McTernan is her spin doctor hired from the UK who believes that politics is about throwing mud and making politics a personal (leader vs leader) , vindictive contest. He is the one that writes her speeches, probably teaches her new words (such as hector), frames her message. Look him up. He did the same type of stuff in the UK that we are witnessing in our parliament today "sleaze and smear" "bottom of barrel" - he would have had a role in writing all that golden stuff for our Julia. The 730 report just repeat it verbatim and even had as their heading the other night: "The Smear Campaign". Astounding, truly astounding if they think this is what this situation about morality boils down to.
 

harmesy 37

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Posts
3,116
Likes
716
Location
Princes Park
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
CFC, Bluebaggers, Blues, No EPLteam
My question is - when is Ian Cambridge (the only one with honour in this whole situation) going to come forward? or has his aims of cleaning up the union now changed seeing as he has been given a plum job by Gillard at Fair Work Australia?

Another day, another lie. It looks like Bernard Murphy was present in some of the slush fund meetings. Where is Murphy now? Gillard gave him a plum job as a Federal Court Judge.

Just a co-incidence I am guessing that all these people with plum jobs (as selected by Gillard and her cronies) had key information about the AWU scandal. Amazing coincidence.
 

noddy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Posts
17,745
Likes
3,168
Location
Land of the Big Red Cloud
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
/The Bays/Man U
McTernan is her spin doctor hired from the UK who believes that politics is about throwing mud and making politics a personal (leader vs leader) , vindictive contest. He is the one that writes her speeches, probably teaches her new words (such as hector), frames her message. Look him up. He did the same type of stuff in the UK that we are witnessing in our parliament today "sleaze and smear" "bottom of barrel" - he would have had a role in writing all that golden stuff for our Julia. The 730 report just repeat it verbatim and even had as their heading the other night: "The Smear Campaign". Astounding, truly astounding if they think this is what this situation about morality boils down to.
How is that morality issue going down in the UK for the Murdoch News Empire?
 

noddy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Posts
17,745
Likes
3,168
Location
Land of the Big Red Cloud
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
/The Bays/Man U
My question is - when is Ian Cambridge (the only one with honour in this whole situation) going to come forward? or has his aims of cleaning up the union now changed seeing as he has been given a plum job by Gillard at Fair Work Australia?

Another day, another lie. It looks like Bernard Murphy was present in some of the slush fund meetings. Where is Murphy now? Gillard gave him a plum job as a Federal Court Judge.

Just a co-incidence I am guessing that all these people with plum jobs (as selected by Gillard and her cronies) had key information about the AWU scandal. Amazing coincidence.
So now you saying that Cambridge might have sold his soul to Gillard & a high court judge has been named in this conspiracy by no other that Julie Bishops new best mate in Blewitt,

Bloody remarkable.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

harmesy 37

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Posts
3,116
Likes
716
Location
Princes Park
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
CFC, Bluebaggers, Blues, No EPLteam
How is that morality issue going down in the UK for the Murdoch News Empire?
Yes, let's compare apples with grapes and watermelons. No problems. Murdoch should be punished for whatever crime he has done. Let's stay on course here though - are we talking about Gillard/AWU/eradication of free press or Murdoch in the uk?

Do you approve of McTernan's tactics? I presume so.
 

harmesy 37

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Posts
3,116
Likes
716
Location
Princes Park
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
CFC, Bluebaggers, Blues, No EPLteam
So now you saying that Cambridge might have sold his soul to Gillard & a high court judge has been named in this conspiracy by no other that Julie Bishops new best mate in Blewitt,

Bloody remarkable.
Believe it or not there were actually honourable people within the AWU who wanted to fight corruption and serve the rank and file unions- not the corrupt leadership. Ian Cambridge is one of these honourable people.

If Cambridge comes forward and discusses his recollection of events, further information then his reputation is not sullied. My guess is that he will be silent though. What is your guess?
 

pjcrows

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Posts
27,546
Likes
35,987
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Minnesota Vikings
This is up there with the Tippett thread.

Anyway, Abbott's sole job was to have Gillard gone by Christmas and an early election. Gillard is still there, and will remain, and his own approvals are at rock bottom. Ever since policy became a taking point the polls have gone from a consistent 56-44 trend to a consistent 52-48 trend and closing.

Have a nice Christmas, Tony.
 

ralphmalph

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Posts
1,826
Likes
473
Location
milwaukee
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
How does he get to the conclusion that the question of whether it was a union or not was a question about its name?

As in this bit:
ought not to be construed as a trade union". Was it a union association or not? The significance of this issue is profound: it is unlawful under the West Australian Associations Incorporation Act for an association to be named in a way likely to mislead as to the object or purpose
On the face of the part he quoted, it is a question of the character of the entity, not its name.
 

Gough

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Posts
40,699
Likes
66,466
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Moderator #1,592
Interesting to note that Geroge Brandis would not repeat his accusations of criminality without the safety net of Parliamentary privilege, in fact he seemed to be getting very frustrated with reporters who were questioning him, it seems ol' George thinks that "because I said so" is sufficient proof of the PM's guilt.
 

Footy Smarts

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
6,696
Likes
9,481
AFL Club
Geelong
Second train-wreck press conference of the week. He was smart enough not to let journalists interject when he made blatant misrepresentations in his answers.

This was asked by one journalist. Basically sums up the opposition allegations of criminatlity right now:

"So your evidence is your interpretation of what she said in 1995 about her state of mind in 1992?"
 

Xsess

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Posts
6,425
Likes
5,757
Location
On top of the world
AFL Club
West Coast
Lol at those on this thread who would still defend a PM who has been demonstatively outed through this episode as at best unethical and incompetent, at worst corrupt. Cringe at the sight of PM who refuses to answer questions in QT for fear of misleading parliament and triggering probable censure and/or criminal exposure. Marvel at the tactics of evasion... Gillard in QT is like watching a B grade horror flick sneering and spitting venom across the chamber. It would seem all of her dodgy associations Slipper, Thomson, Wilson and Blewett etc refusal to answer questions in parliament and unquestioned role setting up a union fund her boyfriend rorted... is preferable to the horror of conceding anything to "the opposition". How deep must your hatred be?
 

romeoh

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Posts
6,199
Likes
4,029
AFL Club
Geelong
Lol at those on this thread who would still defend a PM who has been demonstatively outed through this episode as at best unethical and incompetent, at worst corrupt. Cringe at the sight of PM who refuses to answer questions in QT for fear of misleading parliament and triggering probable censure and/or criminal exposure. Marvel at the tactics of evasion... Gillard in QT is like watching a B grade horror flick sneering and spitting venom across the chamber. It would seem all of her dodgy associations Slipper, Thomson, Wilson and Blewett etc refusal to answer questions in parliament and unquestioned role setting up a union fund her boyfriend rorted... is preferable to the horror of conceding anything to "the opposition". How deep must your hatred be?
And said with not even a trace of irony. ROFL.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Posts
8,812
Likes
7,220
AFL Club
St Kilda
Lol at those on this thread who would still defend a PM who has been demonstatively outed through this episode as at best unethical and incompetent, at worst corrupt. Cringe at the sight of PM who refuses to answer questions in QT for fear of misleading parliament and triggering probable censure and/or criminal exposure. Marvel at the tactics of evasion... Gillard in QT is like watching a B grade horror flick sneering and spitting venom across the chamber. It would seem all of her dodgy associations Slipper, Thomson, Wilson and Blewett etc refusal to answer questions in parliament and unquestioned role setting up a union fund her boyfriend rorted... is preferable to the horror of conceding anything to "the opposition". How deep must your hatred be?
Hey INXS, what do you think of some of the things Tones' done? Just on this topic of incompetence.
What do you think?

Also, see how there was evidence there that he is incompetent and a liar?
 

kimp

Club Legend
Joined
May 21, 2002
Posts
2,905
Likes
87
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lions
Lol at those on this thread who would still defend a PM who has been demonstatively outed through this episode as at best unethical and incompetent, at worst corrupt. Cringe at the sight of PM who refuses to answer questions in QT for fear of misleading parliament and triggering probable censure and/or criminal exposure. Marvel at the tactics of evasion... Gillard in QT is like watching a B grade horror flick sneering and spitting venom across the chamber. It would seem all of her dodgy associations Slipper, Thomson, Wilson and Blewett etc refusal to answer questions in parliament and unquestioned role setting up a union fund her boyfriend rorted... is preferable to the horror of conceding anything to "the opposition". How deep must your hatred be?
And here is where I get confused. Brandis can imply whatever he wants in parliament under priveledge and refuse to repeat it outside for fear of being prosecuted and you see nothing wrong with that. Is it not appalling that these politicians feel they can say anything in parliament? How is that ethical?
 

Xsess

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Posts
6,425
Likes
5,757
Location
On top of the world
AFL Club
West Coast
How is that ethical?
Gillard supported Thomson for two years based on his "presumption of innocence" then dropped him one week before the FWA report was made public (but kept his vote). Of course everyone with a functioning brain cell knew what was going to be exposed in that report. How is that ethical? This debacle is much the same. Gillard can hide behind "due" process all she likes but her refusal to answer questions condemns her, even if she can wiggle out of a criminal charge her conduct is unbecoming of a PM. Her position is untenable and her leadership fatally flawed. Brandis use (or misuse) of parliamentry privilage isn't in the same ball park in the context of impropriety, for a start he's not the PM.. I see youve learnt the art of "attack" as defence of Julia and McTernon.
 
Top Bottom