Friday, November 30, 2012

POLITICIANS PLEASE PAY ATTENTION ! FORWARDING THIS TO EVERYBODY.



Pensions not an Entitlement
The only way things will change is when this kind of email translates into voting results at the polls -- as of NOW -- PENSIONERS outnumber any other type of voter even by race - religion - or age --- WHEN ARE PENSIONERS going to wake up and understand, WE have the power to shape legislation all WE need is the will power to do so-- PLEASE SEND THIS BACK AROUND TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS -- MAYBE THEN THE "GREY REVOLUTION" will begin --- MAYBE !
POLITICIANS PLEASE PAY ATTENTION !
FORWARDING THIS TO EVERYBODY.
'Entitlement' my arse, I paid good money for my State Pension and other benefits.  Just because they borrowed that money, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or hand-out.  Gold plated MP pensions and Civil Service Government benefits, aka free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, 20 weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call me a 'greedy pensioner' and my retirement, an 'entitlement'...  scroll down ....
What the HELL is wrong with us?
WAKE UP Australia !
Someone please tell me what the HELL is wrong with all the people that run this country?
We're "broke" & can't help our own Pensioners, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc., but spent 1.2 billions of $$$'s for G-20 events!
In the last few months we have provided aid to India, Greece and Turkey .  And now Afghanistan , Pakistan ......  home of bin Laden. 
Literally, BILLIONS of Dollars Our retirees living on a 'fixed income', receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organisations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$'s and tons of food to foreign countries.
They call Old Age Security and Healthcare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money.  Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans.
AUSTRALIA : a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, hospitals being closed, average income families who can't afford dental care, elderly going without 'needed' meds and having to travel hundreds of miles for medical care with no reimbursement of cost, vehicles we can't afford fuel for, lack of affordable housing, and mentally ill without treatment - etc., etc.

YET...
They have a 'benefit' for the people of foreign countries...ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents, clothes, bedding, doctors, and medical supplies.
Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.
Sad isn't it?
99% of people won't have the guts to forward this.
I'm one of the 1% -- I Just have


WELL FOLKS THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE! THEY DON’T GIVE A STUFF ABOUT THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE!

The Socialist Forum. It held her interest right up until the AWU-WRA was set up.- Michael Smith


Gillard dismisses Communist link claims

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 17/10/2007
Reporter: Tony Jones
Deputy Labor leader Julia Gillard discusses her past association with a group federal Treasurer Peter Costello has described as a radical left-wing group linked to the Communist Party. 
  

Transcript

TONY JONES: Now for the first of our campaign mid-week guests, the deputy Labor leader Julia Gillard finds herself in the strange position tonight of having to justify her past association with a group known as the Socialist Forum, which the Treasurer and Deputy Liberal Leader Peter Costello describes as a radical left-wing group linked to the Communist Party.   

Well, Mr Costello took the gloves off today at an unusual event to launch what he describes a new information campaign. Well, perhaps he's confusing the Coalition's new generation of attack ads with the tens of millions of taxpayer-funds spent recently on information campaigns about the Government's industrial relations reforms and climate change measures.

Nonetheless, if Labor was in any doubt that as the Prime Minister puts it, they are in a very willing contest for the Government of Australia, today's information campaign will dispel any doubt. The Coalition is clearly in Blitzkrieg mode with its $35 billion tax cuts and its plan for a one-off debate for this Sunday. So, can Labor counter the tax cuts? Is the debate an offer that can't be refused and will Labor's own campaign go dark or try to stay above the fray?

Julia Gillard joins us now in our Melbourne studio. Thanks for being there.

JULIA GILLARD: Good evening, Tony. 

TONY JONES: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

JULIA GILLARD: (Laughs) Tony, I think that question shows how silly all of this is getting, though I suspect in this interview, probably the Howard Government would think you're the dangerous radical. After all, I'm only from the Labor Party, you're from the ABC. 

TONY JONES: Well look, seriously, Peter Costello has thrown this out. Let's deal with it properly. What's the Socialist Forum? Were you an organiser for it? And when did that happen, if you were? 

JULIA GILLARD: Tony, it's 2007 and I'm a 46-year-old woman. What Peter Costello is referring to is more than 20 years ago when I was in my 20s. I was a full-time university student and I had a part-time job for an organisation called Socialist Forum, which was a sort of debating society. It ultimately amalgamated with the Fabian society, which of course is a long-running ideas and debating group in Australian politics and indeed in British politics before Australian politics. I've worked in the cleric and administrative work.

TONY JONES: It wasn't a front organisation for Communists?

JULIA GILLARD: Certainly not. It was an organisation where people who identified themselves as progressives, some in the Labor Party, some outside the Labor Party, would come together and would talk about ideas. I did clerical and administrative work, Tony. This is so long ago. It's the days before modern computers and the internet, in the days where if you wanted to put out a meeting notice to people you wouldn't send an email, you'd get out an envelope and put it in your IBM electric typewriter and type up the address and then get the next one. That's the sort of thing I used to do. 

TONY JONES: So what are you saying? As a young woman you flirted with a radical fringe group, you then joined the left-wing of the Labor Party. Before you knew it, you were the deputy leader of the Labor Party and now you want to be deputy prime minister? 

JULIA GILLARD: Tony, it's been a fair old journey since my 20s. Yes, you know in the years in between, what have I done? I completed my law degree, I completed my economics degree. 

I completed the course you did instead of being an article clerk, I was a lawyer for eight years, I was a partner of a law firm for five years. I worked for John Brumby as his chief of staff and ultimately I went into federal politics. I've been in federal politics for eight years now since 1998, and I would be more than happy to be judged on any part of that record. 

TONY JONES: It does point out a sort of vulnerability, though, that you - that Kevin Rudd even - and the whole frontbench with the possible exception of Peter Garrett has, and that is that many voters don't really know that much about you all, and your pasts.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, I think Australian voters know this about Kevin and they know it about me and the rest of Labor. We're out there putting fresh thinking and ideas for Australia's future. I mean, just contrast what happened today in the election campaign, Tony. Kevin Rudd launched a major policy about more nurses for this country. I went out to a small business and launched a policy about assisting small business to help them and their employees balance work and family life. A very vexed question in the modern age. 

Peter Costello launched a negative advertisement for the Liberal Party. Now, I think that tells you all you need to know about this election campaign. We're actually talking to Australians about things that matter to them - whether there'll be a nurse at their local hospital when they need one, whether their working life can be improved. Peter Costello is talking about the Liberal Party and its campaign tactics, and thinks it's a good thing to spend a whole day launching a negative attack ad. You couldn't get more desperate. 

TONY JONES: I'll come back to that in a minute. But let me ask you another question. Are you now or have or have you ever been a fiscal conservative? 

JULIA GILLARD: (Laughs) Tony, I am certainly a conservative person when it comes to government finances and accounting. 

TONY JONES: You weren't always, though, were you? I mean, 'Medicare Gold' was hardly a fiscally conservative measure, was it? It was Whitlamesque to say the very least.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Tony, let's think about the problems in health care and the aged care acute care divide. And the problem there is of course is that frail Australians who need an aged care bed end up in acute public hospital beds because there's nowhere else for them to go. That under the Howard Government wastes hundreds of millions of dollars of health money each year. Well, that's not fiscally conservative. That's not prudent. And that's why Kevin Rudd with his $2 billion health plan is determined to fix it. 

TONY JONES: I'm just reminding you of your credentials for fiscal conservatism. They are a little open to question when you came before us in the last election with an open-ended funding commitment for free health care for everyone over the age of 75 when we all knew that that group of people was going to double over the next 20 years.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, in our health system there is a reform issue. There's not one way of fixing that reform issue. But the issue is there and it's been left unattended for 11 years under the Howard Government. And that issue is that we waste hundreds of millions of dollars each year because of a systemic underfunding of aged care and consequently frail elderly Australians ending up in hospital beds when they should be somewhere else. Now, it's dreadful for them, nothing worse than being in an acute hospital bed when you don't need to be there. Shocking for the system. 

Yes, I've been involved in talking about reforms to try and resolve that and Kevin now has a $2 billion health plan and that would be one of the issues which he would seek to resolve. 

TONY JONES: Well done for staying on message there. 

JULIA GILLARD: Can I put the question the other way, Tony? Is it fiscally conservative, is it fiscally conservative for Mr Costello to have been Treasurer all these years and watch that money bleed out of the system, hundred of millions of dollars each year, and done absolutely nothing about it? Is that the action of a fiscal conservative? Our treasurer who prides himself on these things?

TONY JONES: Let's go back to the Treasurer and the Government ads that he put out today. Are you at all worried this stamping of virtually every member of your Cabinet as being a former union official or associated closely associated with the unions, it all being evidently anti-business according to the ads. Are you worried that that will actually home? 

JULIA GILLARD: Well, obviously the Government's doing it for a reason, and the reason they're doing it is they haven't got any positive plans. We always knew that they were going to run the mother of all fear campaigns during this election. Now, you know, advertising, people buy it because they think it's going to work, and I'm sure the Government's researched these ads and they think they're going to have some effect. We'll watch and see how that plays out. But I would hope, Tony, that Australians watching those ads would think to themselves, 'Well, is this government actually saying anything to me about the future? Why are they asking me to vote for them?' And none of these negative ads are ever going to answer that question about the Howard Government because in truth, Tony, it can't be answered. They haven't got any forward vision. They're stale, they're out of ideas, lost touch, and consequently we're just going to see these negative ads - you know, red scary voices, all of the things, that come out of the republican campaign manual.

TONY JONES: Mr Howard says 'grow up, it's not dirty or negatives it's just the truth'

JULIA GILLARD: I was astonished when I saw John Howard say that today. I mean, here's a man who's been in public life for well over 30 years. He's been Prime Minister for more than 11. And is his reaction is something that you would expect a primary school student to say in a playground spat. Well, I think John Howard ought to be doing a bit better than that frankly, Tony. I think John Howard ought to be acknowledging to Australians that he's only on this negative campaign because he hasn't got anything else left to say. 

TONY JONES: Speaking of things to say, Julia Gillard, are voters going to see all or part of Labor's tax policy in the debate next Sunday? 

JULIA GILLARD: Well, we are in the process of studying all of the economic information that came out with the mid-year fiscal and economic outlook. Tony, we pride ourselves on making sure we are prudent and measured about these matters. It's more than 200 pages of information, much of it quite different from the estimates that were given to us with the Budget. So we will study it and in due season, Tony, we will announce our tax policies and plans. 

TONY JONES: You're going have to come up with something from that tax policy to reveal at the debate, are you not?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, on the question of the debate, clearly the political parties are still at odds about debating numbers and debating format. Mr Howard of course is saying one debate on his terms, no worm, I mean, he hates the worm. I think the worm hates him and he hates the worm. We're saying three debates at various stages of the campaign so that there can be proper exposure of policies, as they're launched. There is no agreement as yet and our national secretary will keep pursuing a better arrangement for the Australian people with the secretary of the Liberal Party.

TONY JONES: The debate is an offer you can't refuse, isn't it, in reality? 

JULIA GILLARD: Well, I don't think Mr Howard can afford to refuse our challenge to three debates. 

TONY JONES: Well, he can. He's the incumbent. That's his right. He doesn't have to appear at any debate. He's going to have a debate on Sunday. Kevin Rudd will either be there or not be there. Will he be there? 

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Mr Howard, I think, has to consider what Australians are going to think if he dogs out of debates because he doesn't want to have them, and in particular dogs out of them in circumstances where he's too afraid of the worm to turn up at the same time that the worm does. 

I mean, this is a man who is apparently seeking a mandate because he says he's got more to do. Well, what is it that he's got more to do? He's got more negative ads to launch? He's got more anti-union slogans to parrot? What is it that he wants to do for this country? Why isn't he prepared to have that exposed and tested in a debate on more than one occasion? 

TONY JONES: But that debate, and by the logic of what you just said, if Kevin Rudd does not turn up at the debate on Sunday, that will be dogging a debate no matter how you spin it, won't it? 

JULIA GILLARD: Well, we're seeking three debates across the course of the campaign. Kevin's made it very clear he's happy to meet John Howard in those debates, he's happy to meet the worm at the same time. 

TONY JONES: He wouldn't be happy to see John Howard standing there, not in fact like a jilted bridegroom, but a self righteous Prime Minister who's got no-one to debate with because the Opposition Leader dogged it. He's going to have to be there, isn't he, you have to admit that.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, it would be a pretty sad sight wouldn't it, John Howard by himself, not even a worm for company. Tony, I agree with that, it would be a bit pitiful. 

TONY JONES: So he'll be there, will he? We presume.

JULIA GILLARD: Our national secretary will keep negotiating and arguing for three debates.

TONY JONES: You couldn't possibly expect us to believe that right now Kevin Rudd is not prepping for a debate on Sunday, are you seriously telling me he is not prepping for a debate on Sunday? 

JULIA GILLARD: Kevin's doing what he always does, which is he's travelling around the country. He's obviously out there with policies, he's been out there with a major one today. The question of the debates is still being worked through by the political parties. 

TONY JONES: Is he prepping, one way or the other? I mean, he's - surely not just sort of taking and sending text messages. At some point he's going to have to sit down and prep for a debate. 

JULIA GILLARD: At some point, Tony, I hope he hit sits down and he preps for three debates and that's what he's trying to do.

TONY JONES: Well, this brings us back to what Labor will have to counter in one or three debates, and that is the Government's giant tax cuts, which must be a surely be right now a philosophical debate inside your party. Do we go along with the Government's tax cut, do we reshape tax cuts in our own image, or do we use these billions of dollars to spend on the services we say, as the Labor party, you say as the Labor Party, are not sufficient at the present moment? Is that debate happening right now? 

JULIA GILLARD: We're looking obviously at the Government's proposals. We're looking at MYEFO as well. Tony, we've always said that we thought we needed to be increasing the participation rate, that there were disincentives at the lower end in our tax system. There's been this ongoing problem with the very high effective marginal tax rates faced by people as they try to make welfare to work transitions. 

Wayne Swan, of course, is on the record about these matters going back a number of years now. Not only in his capacity as shadow treasurer but formerly in his capacity as shadow minister for family and community services. So our principles here are well known, the sort of criteria we judge by. But we are going to look at that, the tax package of the Government in light of that criteria. And of course in light of the new economic information which is in MYEFO. 

TONY JONES: This is probably the most money you're ever going to see available to spend on public services in your lifetimes. Are you seriously saying that the Labor Party is not debating now whether to spend a large percentage of that on services you say are lacking in the community, as opposed to just giving it away to people in tax cuts?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Tony, we've already made a substantial number of promises on the services side. And unlike the Government we've gone on a hunt for savings. We haven't just said "spend and take it off the surplus". We've actually gone through the Government's books and said that there are savings to be found -

TONY JONES: Now you know there's $34 billion over three years, which could be used for tax cuts or could be used for services. Is there a debate going on now in the inner sanctum of the Labor Party on how to use that money? 

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Tony, frankly I don't think it's that sort of stark either or choice. What do we want to see in this country? Of course we want to see quality services. That's why we're putting forward various proposals to improve them, including Kevin Rudd's education revolution and our $2 billion health plan. And we want to see tax rates at a level that are as low as possible, given that we need to finance quality services. We want to see a boost in participation. We want people in the work force, we want to smooth out those transitions from welfare to work. We don't want people to face high effective marginal tax rates at lower incomes. So we're looking at the balance in all of these issues. We're looking at the Government's proposal, we're looking at the economic information in MYEFO and we will make these judgements in due season, Tony.

TONY JONES: Have you considered anything as radical as tax-free child care?

JULIA GILLARD: We've certainly talked about child care, we've already promised 260 new child care centres.

TONY JONES: I mean a tax rebate for child care?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, there's the current benefit system of course. We've said we would add to the child care supply in this country with 260 new child care centres. We've also said we'd add to the child care work force with some preferential arrangements there in terms of training cost and HECS. 

TONY JONES: But hang on. You'd be not considering making child care tax deductible, that's my point?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, we have and will consider measures to make child care more affordability. Obviously -

TONY JONES: Tax deductibility was the question.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, I know tax deductibility was your question, Tony, and we are considering a range of measures that could make child care more affordable. We understand that whether or not people can get access to affordable, quality child care makes a big difference to the participation agenda. As I should say, Tony, does the question of family friendly working practices, which is why I was at a small business today announcing a $12 million plan to try and help small businesses with family friendly arrangements that would certainly increase their ability to hold and retain staff. 

TONY JONES: Julia Gillard, we'll have to leave you there. I'm sorry we're out of time. We thank you very much for coming to join us on what is the first edition of our campaign midweek. 

JULIA GILLARD: A pleasure, Tony, Thank you.


Now read this file MICHAEL SMITH was been 

given on Gillard's actual role in the Socialist

Forum. You be the judge.



Download Socialist forum 

SENATOR THE HON GEORGE BRANDIS, SC Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Shadow Attorney-General Shadow Minister for the Arts TRANSCRIPT Press Conference, Parliament House 30 November 2012 Topics: AWU Affair



SENATOR THE HON GEORGE BRANDIS, SC
Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Shadow Attorney-General Shadow Minister for the Arts
TRANSCRIPT
Press Conference, Parliament House
30 November 2012
Topics: AWU Affair
E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………………………
BRANDIS: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. There has been some debate this morning in the media about the claim made by the position that Julia Gillard broke the law in relation to the establishment and operation of the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association. In order to get to the bottom of this affair, the Opposition, as you know, yesterday called for the establishment of a judicial inquiry. I think the terms of reference that we proposed for that judicial inquiry were released by the Opposition Leader's office yesterday but for ease of reference for you I will give you give you a copy of them as well as a small bundle of documents I want to take you to.
Now, Parliament is a political forum and debates between journalists and politicians about the law are seldom very illuminating but let me explain to you the basis upon which or the principal basis upon which the Opposition says Julia Gillard broke the law. We say that she broke the law because the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association was established as a sham to facilitate a fraud and by her participation in its establishment, Julia Gillard was a party to that crime. Now, it is against the law of every Australian State, including the law of Western Australia, to provide a materially false statement when a person is under a statutory obligation to provide information to an authority. That is the effect of section 170 of the Western Australian Criminal Code in the terms in which it was drawn at the time of these events in 1992.
It is also, of course, a crime to participate in a conspiracy to defraud –that is also a statutory offence under Western Australian criminal law. The key issue in this case, therefore, was the nature of Ms Gillard's involvement as a solicitor then working for Slater & Gordon – as a partner indeed of Slater & Gordon – in the establishment of the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association. And we
know what her state of mind was from her exit interview with the partners of Slater & Gordon on 11 September 1995.
Now, I just want to pause there to emphasise to those of you who are not had careers in the legal profession, what an extraordinary thing the exit interview itself was. For a partner of a law firm to be required by her managing partner and her senior partner to undergo a long and tape recorded interview about her conduct of a particular file is something that almost never happens, in a law firm or any other professional firm. And it would only happen if there was a belief on the part of those partners that there was a matter of grave concern in issue. But leaving that aside, in the bundle of documents I've given you, the last of the documents is an extract from what Ms Gillard said in the Slater & Gordon interview. And if I can take you to the bottom paragraph of the first of the two pages – the second last two pages of the bundle, that is the famous slush fund confession. And can I also draw your attention after the omission of some redacted portions, to what she goes on to say in the paragraph commencing three lines from the bottom about what the thinking was.
Now, a number of apologists and defenders of the Prime Minister have gone to great pains to stress or to assert that Ms Gillard, at the time she was involved in the creation of the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association, did not think it was a slush fund, did not know it was a slush fund and that her words in September 1995 should be interpreted and understood to mean that that was an awareness she later developed. I submit to you that on any fair reading of the interview and in particular on any fair reading of the relevant paragraphs of the interview in the context, that is not an available or a reasonable interpretation. It is perfectly clear from the words Ms Gillard herself chose to use, and indeed the tense in which she spoke, that she was speaking of what her understanding of the nature and purpose of the Association was at the time it was established and what her thinking was, her word, in the establishment of the association.
To paraphrase, it was established for the purpose of financing and holding the monies to finance funds to – for the campaign of a ticket of union officials within AWU elections. Now if that's what Ms Gillard's advice to Wilson and Blewitt was at the time – to set up this association for that purpose – then she was obliged not just professionally as a solicitor, though of course she was obliged professionally as a solicitor, but also as a matter of general law in her participation in the establishment of the Association to be honest about its purposes. That is – and there are certain requirements under the Western Australian Associations Incorporation Act which impose certain obligations or requirements or conditions on the establishment and registration of an incorporated association. We know, because it's not in dispute, that Ms Gillard prepared the documents, although they were signed in Mr Blewitt's name.
Now, in the bundle of documents I've given you, the first document is actually the application form, dated 22 April 1992, and if you look at item 2 of the particulars, “The Association is formed for the purposes of development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces,” and that is described in the parentheses below as the main purpose. Ms Gillard prepared that document. That, as we know from her exit interview from Slater & Gordon was not the main purpose or indeed a purpose of the Association. And if one also looks at the objects clause of the rules of the association – clause 3 – which were lodged with the application, it is as plain as can be that this association did not purport to be established for the purposes of financing the campaign of a group of union officials in an internal union election campaign.
The second document in the bundle is the certificate of incorporation. It's only relevant because of the date it bears – 24 June 1992. Now pausing there, if a person participates in seeking the registration of an association and misdescribes its purpose in a misleading fashion as Ms Gillard plainly did, the rules – clause 2 of the application cannot, on any fair reading, sit with the paragraphs of her exit interview to which I've drawn your attention. Then that, in the Opposition's view, in my view, in the view of Julie Bishop who is an experienced commercial lawyer herself, a former managing partner of the Perth office of Clayton Utz with more than 20 years experience as a commercial lawyer, that is a breach of the commercial laws of Western Australia – that is section 43 of the Association's Incorporation Act – but it is also a breach of section 170 of the Criminal Code.
If that were the end of the matter, it would be enough but there is more because the Workplace Reform Association didn't just solicit contributions from individual members of the Australian Workers Union, it also solicited contributions from external contributors – one of whom, Thiess, subsequently made a complaint to the police saying it had been misled as to the purposes of the association. It's entirely plausible that some of the people – some of the members of the AWU who signed a payroll deduction authority to allow a small part of their fortnightly wage to be paid to the Workplace Reform Association, may have known the true purpose – that by contributing to the association they were contributing to the Wilson-Blewitt faction’s ticket for internal union elections, that's plausible.
It's not plausible, in fact, it's impossible to believe that external contributors like Thiess, in making their contributions to the Workplace Reform Association, so believed or did so for that reason. That's why Thiess subsequently complained to the police. The next document in the bundle I've given you – the third document – is invoice number one. It's the earliest invoice document, as the serial number one tends to suggest, made to Thiess by the Workplace Reform Association for services. The importance of the document is the date – 30 April 1992 – which is eight days after the application was lodged and almost two months before the registration was certified or the certificate of incorporation was issued. Further, the next document in the bundle, purchase order 410373, is the first document that we can find that is
made out to the Workplace Reform Association. This is, so far as I can find, the first document on which the Workplace Reform Association is described by that name and you will note that the date of that document is 9 April 1992. That's on the left-hand side just below the reference to the name and address of the Association.
Now, once again, the significance of that document lies in the date which in fact, in this case, predates the application itself. What that shows, the Opposition contends, is that this is not merely a case in which the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association was established for one purpose – that is the slush fund – the purpose of a slush fund to fund the election of union officials running on the Wilson-Blewitt ticket, and months or even years down the track, it came to be used as a vehicle for other unlawful purposes. At the time of its very inception, it was being used to solicit external contributions, and to provide services to companies external to the union that had nothing to do with the purpose – the true purpose – of the association which Ms Gillard recited. So the fact that contributions were going to be – or moneys were going to be paid into the association from external parties, not merely from trade union members, was known from the start.
Now – – –
REPORTER: (Inaudible question)
BRANDIS: We are saying that, at the time the Association was established, that was always its work. We are saying that, on the basis of the legal documents she lodged – prepared and lodged, she materially misled the Western Australian Corporate Affairs Commission. But we are also saying that from its inception, the AWU Workplace Reform Association was set up not merely to receive contributions from union members, but to receive contributions from external commercial parties.
REPORTER: Can I take to you the objects of Association?
BRANDIS: Yes.
REPORTER: Now, you haven't actually talked about those and there is another document that’s dated March, plus the 9-page document with the objects. Now, they are A to H, they go to contributing to the development of change to work in order to achieve democratic safe workplaces.
BRANDIS: And Andrew, you are going to take me to object F, aren’t you?
REPORTER: Okay, I’ll take you to E. It is “To promote, within unions, the adoption of the aims of the association”; F, “To support and assist union officials and union members.” Now, firstly, when she was asked about this – the Prime Minister was asked about this in August, it was her contention that that was consistent with it being a slush fund, albeit she didn't like the use of that terminology. We asked the Consumer
Protection Commissioner, which is the replacement of the Commissioner and Anne Driscoll said:
“The objects are broad in nature and range and appear to cover a broad range of activities. Accordingly, the objects do not appear to be dedicated to any one particular activity and also that the name of the association does not appear to be inconsistent with its stated objects.”
Where’s your case? Given that very broad – her argument is and her contention is that it was consistent with a slush fund. You cannot move state of mind with your evidence today.
BRANDIS: Well, Andrew, a couple of things. First of all, what you’ve told me the West Australian Consumer Protection Authority has said is that the objects are consistent with the name, and that's all they've said.
REPORTER: “The objects are broad in nature and appear to cover a range of activities.” It’s more than the name.
BRANDIS: Well, the objects are broad in their nature. A plain reading of the objects – – –
REPORTER: Objects that you would write as a lawyer, too, to give you maximum – – –
BRANDIS: May I finish, please?
REPORTER: Yes.
BRANDIS: The objects are broad in their nature, as objects clauses of associations of this kind always are but on a fair reading of rule three – that is the objects clause of the draft rules – it would be, in the Opposition's contention, impossible to conclude that the primary purpose for which this association was established was the purpose described by Julia Gillard in her exit interview on 11 September 1995 – that is a slush fund to fund a particular ticket.
REPORTER: But a good lawyer – – –
BRANDIS: If I may finish, please – that is to fund the election of a ticket of trade union officials within the AWU. You combine that with item two of the application which asks for the – and that's a document that it's not controversial was prepared by Julia Gillard – which asks for the principal purpose of the Association and the principal purpose of the Association could not fairly be described in those terms. In other words, what Gillard said on 11 September 1995 is, in the Opposition's view, plainly inconsistent with what she wrote as the main purpose of the Association in her document – the document prepared and lodged on 22 April 1992.
There is another point I should make, by the way. This isn't the only respect in which the lodgement application was also false and misleading. It was also false and misleading because it certified that –
represented that the association was otherwise compliant with the requirements of the Associations Incorporations Act, which require a minimum of five members and in fact there were only two: Wilson and Blewitt.
REPORTER: The writing on this page, all of it is Ralph Blewitt's, isn't it? Apart from the third line which is in upper and lower case, which is Ms Gillard's writing, isn't that the case?
BRANDIS: Well, I'm not a handwriting expert, but I rely on the fact that – – –
REPORTER: But you're saying that this development of changes to work, et cetera, et cetera – that was written by Ms Gillard.
BRANDIS: I'm relying on the fact that Ms Gillard has herself admitted, not only in her exit interview on 11 September 1995, but in her press conference on, I think it was 23 August this year, before you, ladies and gentlemen, that she was responsible for the preparation, or the lawyering of the application of the registration of the Association
REPORTER: So you can tell us right now that she definitely wrote that line two?
BRANDIS: She was responsible for – – –
REPORTER: But you can’t tell us that she wrote those words?
BRANDIS: When a solicitor lodges a document – any form of commercial document of this kind, they, by the act of lodging it, represent to the relevant authority that it is, to the best of their knowledge, accurate.
REPORTER: But your case largely rests on the interpretation of nine words "development of changes to work to achieve workplaces" which in itself is vague and the objects are vague. Again, it goes to state of mind. You can't prove, one way or the other, what her state of mind was or contest her assertion that it was consistent with a slush fund.
BRANDIS: We know what her state of mind was because she told the partners in September 1995. She said it was a slush fund for the purpose of – – –
REPORTER: You're contesting – – –
BRANDIS: If I may finish. That it was a slush fund for the purpose of holding moneys to finance the election of a ticket of union officials within union elections and on any fair reading, either of rule three of the draft rules, including rule 3F or of item two – that is the main purpose – certified and represented by Julia Gillard in the application document, that conceals rather than discloses what she said in September 1995 was the true purpose of the slush fund.
REPORTER: That was three years later as well, though, that exit interview, so how can you line up her frame of mind then with what she wrote three years earlier?
BRANDIS: Well, David, that's a very important point you make, because as I said earlier on in my remarks, the Labor Party and its spokesmen are very eager to say that that reflected her belief in September 1995 , not her state of mind in April 1992. And all I say to you is if you read her exit interview, it seems very clear, particularly the second paragraph, the less widely publicised paragraph to which I have drawn to your attention, which begins with the words, "The thinking behind", admits, we say, no other fair interpretation than that she was telling the partners of Slater & Gordon what her thinking was in approaching the establishment of the slush fund by way of this legal structure.
REPORTER: Senator, is it your contention that had Julia Gillard back in 1992, filled out line two with the words to the effect "to assist in the re-election of union officials on a platform of workplace safety" that this wouldn't have been incorporated?
BRANDIS: Yes, it would not have been incorporated, but that's not our point. That's not our point
REPORTER: No, no, you're saying she is less than honest.
BRANDIS: Our point, Phil, is that the document that she represented to be true was false.
REPORTER: That's true, that's true, but – – –
REPORTER: Senator, do you seriously expect, though that any DPP would actually bring these charges?
BRANDIS: That's a matter for them.
REPORTER: Senator, let's be clear, the only evidence you've got here for the Prime Minister acting illegally 20 years ago is your interpretation of what she said in 1995 about what she did in 1992? Is that it?
BRANDIS: We know what she said in 1995.
REPORTER: We know your interpretation of it.
BRANDIS: See, the best evidence of a person's state – – –
REPORTER: But is there anything more than that?
BRANDIS: The best evidence a person's state of mind is what they declare to be their state of mind in circumstances in which there is no reason to believe they are not telling the truth. She declared her state of mind, in this case her purpose or intention in 1992, in the exit interview. That is inconsistent with the purposes recorded on the documents which she lodged and represented to be true.
REPORTER: Except she contests that the objects of the association, which she doesn't deny writing and authoring, are consistent with it being a slush fund.
BRANDIS: She contends that.
REPORTER: Do you think that's rubbish?
BRANDIS: Yes, I do. That interpretation of the objects and of item two of the application document is so implausible, it's such a stretch, that it can't be believed. We know why she set this up because she said so. And therefore if she was going to be compliant with the law, she was obliged to tell the corporate regulator that – that it was to run a ticket to secure the election of union officials and she didn't. And we know why she didn't, too, because if she had written the truth, it wouldn't have been incorporated.
REPORTER: Senator, how do you know that, that's back to my question?
BRANDIS: Because that is not a valid purpose for the incorporation of an industrial organisation.
REPORTER: Yesterday you told the Senate that the Labor Party is being led by a criminal. Outside of parliamentary privilege, do you say the Prime Minister is a criminal?
BRANDIS: I'm saying that, on the documentary evidence and her own admissions, there appears to me, and appears to the Opposition, to have been a breach of the criminal and commercial laws of Western Australia – of the Criminal Code, section 170 in particular, and of the Association's Incorporation Act. Now, on the question of what I said in the Senate, parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. Parliamentary privilege is actually part of the law. It's been part of the law since 1689 and the bill of rights and the reason that is exists is that members of the Parliament are unconstrained in the chamber from saying what people are not at liberty to say outside the chamber at least without taking the risk of being sued. It’s a privilege that should be exercised judiciously, I, as a former chairman of the Privileges Committee, know that more than most
But it does exist so that when there are allegations of serious wrongdoing to be made against senior people or officials in government, they can be made free of constraint.
REPORTER: You don't allege anything, you actually said it.
REPORTER: Do you now pledge to hold a judicial inquiry into this?
BRANDIS: Well, we've said there should be a judicial inquiry.
REPORTER: That's quite different. I'm saying if you win government, will you hold a judicial inquiry into this?
BRANDIS: I'm not here to announce a judicial inquiry as an election promise by the Coalition.
REPORTER: (inaudible)
BRANDIS: I'm not here to announce one. What I'm here to do is to, as Mr Abbott did in the House of Representatives yesterday, is to call upon the Government to establish a judicial inquiry, and if Ms Gillard has nothing to hide, then that's what she would do, but of course she won't.
REPORTER: Will you, in the absence – – –
BRANDIS: I'm not here to announce that that is what we would do. I'm not at liberty to do so but we believe that the Government should establish a judicial inquiry into this matter
REPORTER: George, back to line two – No. 2. Greg Combet has got a lot of union experience. He says it's very commonplace within the union movement to establish these incorporations for all manner of purposes.
BRANDIS: It may well be.
REPORTER: Have you studied other applications to incorporate similar funds to contrast the specificity of the stated reasons for its establishment with this? Are they always this vague?
BRANDIS: The answer to your question is no, nor is that a relevant consideration. The fact that there may be – – –
REPORTER: Well, you’ve made an allegation that this is non-specific enough – this is deliberately misleading. Would there be precedent against which you could – or something to contrast this? This may be the norm.
BRANDIS: If it's the norm, the fact that there is a pattern of wrongdoing in the union movement, and we know that there is a pattern wrongdoing within the union movement, is absolutely no legal justification for any particular act of wrongdoing, and it's on the particular act of wrongdoing in this particular case that with which we are concerned.
REPORTER: Some of the allegations have actually been around for years, including when the Coalition was in Government. Why did the Coalition not, when it was in Government, or indeed when the Opposition Leader was Industrial Relations Minister, look into this more closely?
BRANDIS: Well, I think it's fair to say that this is an issue that has developed particularly in the last few months, developed a momentum of its own. You're right to say – all the documents I've shown you are documents from the 1990s. Just because public attention hasn't been focused on a particular issue in the past, it doesn't mean once, on reflection, the significance of it has come to be appreciated, it shouldn't be now.
REPORTER: George, can I ask another question on a different topic, just on the LNP up in Queensland and what’s going on up there – are you worried as we go into an election year about any possible impact on the Coalition's chances given this fragmenting we’ve seen in the State Parliament?
BRANDIS: Well, I'm delighted to answer that question, Phil. Campbell Newman, on the 24th of March, won not just the greatest electoral victory in Australian history, he actually won the greatest electoral victory on this continent in pre-Australian history – not even in the colonial parliaments did one side of politics have such a massive electoral victory over another – and he ended up with 78 seats out of 89. It was always to be expected and I doubt that there is a political commentator in this room who didn't make the observation at the time, that a backbench that large would be very difficult to handle and it has proved in the case of, I think, three individuals who were all people who, one way or another, were disappointed for not being preferred for promotion. That was entirely predicted. So now Campbell Newman and the LNP in Queensland have got 75 seats, not 78 seats, out of 89.
But Campbell Newman has made a number of very tough decisions. The Newman Government rather reminds me of the Kennett Government which, when it was elected in 1992, also made some very tough decisions in similar circumstances in which the State of Victoria in that case had been reduced to the stage of a recession and almost a mini-depression, largely because of the mismanagement of the Kirner Government – some of whose principal staffers, by the way, now sit around the cabinet table. Within three or four months of the election of the Kennett Government, 100,000 people marched through the streets of Melbourne protesting public service cuts but the government of Jeff Kennett was re-elected with an increased majority at the next election because the people of Victoria realised that the decisions were necessary. Short-term unpopularity in the face of tough decisions by the Newman Government were entirely predictable.
And the short answer to your question after that very long preamble, is no.
[ends]

Julia Gillard and her influences on those who surround her , she is such a great role model, how much influence or a hand in, for political points, did she have re: The Australia day riots?


Leave aside who told who what. The fact is the Prime 

Minister's office thought it was legitimate politics to organise 

an Aboriginal protest against her political rival.

As a taxpayer-funded ''media adviser'', Tony Hodges sent a 

tip-off to the Aboriginal tent embassy that Tony Abbott was 

nearby so they could do what? So they could go and protest 

against him.


And this is the key point. As far as Hodges was concerned 

the Aboriginal activists were legitimate assets to be used for 

partisan benefit. The only thing he had to do was to give 

them the message without leaving fingerprints. But Hodges 

wasn't up to that. So he had to fall on his sword to protect 

his boss.
Fell on his sword ... Tony Hodges.
Fell on his sword ... Tony 
Hodges. Photo: Andrew 
Meares


Next time you hear the sound 

of handwringing coming from 

the Gillard government about 

how much they care for 

indigenous people, remember: 

they don't care nearly as much 

about them as they care about 

Tony Abbott. If they can use 

them to get at him, they will.