A third QC, Russell Hanson, says Gillard has a case to answer regarding the AWU slush fund /Blewitt/ Wilson/AWU scandal. This has always been about the pursuit of justice and protecting the integrity of the office of Prime Minister. FULL ARTICLE: A FORMER top criminal defence lawyer has reviewed reams of evidence about the AWU slush fund scandal at the ongoing Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, resulting in his legal opinion that Julia Gillard has problems best resolved by a jury. Russell Hanson QC, who helped run several royal commission-style probes before his retirement, based his detailed review on sworn witness statements and oral testimony at the commission, as well as key documents including Gillard’s exit interview from the law firm Slater & Gordon in 1995. His findings are in stark contrast to those by former Labor leader Mark Latham, who has no legal training but who has used his column in The Australian Financial Review to criticise the anti-corruption commission, ridicule Victoria Police and lampoon the evidence of key witnesses. Latham wrote in the AFR that three witnesses with evidence adverse to Gillard were like “ageing Oompa Loompas”, adding that a smear campaign with no substance had been run by The Australian to tarnish the former PM. Hanson’s review dismisses Latham as an “apologist”. Hanson says: “I am of the view that there has been sufficient evidence given, in a form admissible in a criminal trial, to entitle a jury to find criminal conduct on the part of (former Australian Workers Union boss Bruce) Wilson and (former AWU official Ralph) Blewitt. “In Gillard’s case, I come to the same conclusion based on the evidence given, supplemented by evidence in the public arena, namely her own public statements. “The evidence is overwhelming that the Workplace Reform Association (slush fund) was a sham from start to finish. “There seems to me to be clear and apparently reliable evidence that Wilson was giving Gillard substantial sums of money for her (home) renovations. Where did it come from? From the (slush fund)? Did Gillard know this? What’s a married man with a family in Perth doing paying thousands of dollars for her renovations? Could she possibly think it was coming out of his own pocket? Tell it to the jury.” Leaked emails, published in The Australian last week, and disclosures by former staff have shown how Latham started to become a mouthpiece for Gillard’s former communications head, John McTernan, in 2012, shortly after the AWU scandal burst back into the limelight. In the emails, Latham gloated about the hatchet job he was doing on Gillard’s enemies and asked for research help for a future column. Latham sent McTernan a draft article, before it was published, in which the former Labor leader attacked the then PM’s arch rival, Kevin Rudd. McTernan asked for Latham’s autograph and told staff to keep using Latham. In June this year, following evidence to the royal commission by three key witnesses about cash payments to Gillard, Latham dismissed their testimony, writing in the AFR: “Like a parade of ageing Oompa Loompas, three impish men — Ralph Blewitt, Wayne Hem and Athol James — claimed to remember cash being exchanged in and around her Melbourne home. In the witness box, the three veterans struggled to recall other events and details from 20 years ago. Rather, the commission was left with a vague impression of money floating around the house — claims that cannot be proven or disproven.” The royal commission is expected to call Gillard, who has always strenuously denied that she did anything wrong in relation to legal advice she gave to her then boyfriend and client, Wilson, that resulted in the establishment of the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association. Wilson has supported Gillard. In a once-confidential taped 1995 interview with Slater & Gordon’s then boss, Peter Gordon, Gillard described the association as a “slush fund” for union elections. However, its registration documents that went to the West Australian government claimed its role was work safety and training. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid by building company Thiess into the slush fund, and several witnesses at the royal commission — former AWU staff member Hem, former AWU official Blewitt and retired builder James — testified that Wilson was behind the payment of thousands of dollars to Gillard, including for the costs of renovations at her home in inner Melbourne. These matters are also the subject of an ongoing Victoria Police Fraud Squad investigation. Gillard has insisted since 2012 that she paid for her renovations and that she did nothing wrong. Hanson has told The Weekend Australian his review revolved around the royal commission’s material, including the cross-examination of 11 witnesses. “I have looked at the evidence with a view to ascertaining whether there is evidence, admissible at a criminal trial, from which a jury could reasonably convict,” he says in a 2400-word analysis provided to The Weekend Australian. “In Gillard’s case, in addition to the evidence before the commission, I have also had regard to evidence that is apparently in the public arena, concerning her involvement in setting up the (slush fund). “For this purpose, I have assumed that Blewitt would be a crown witness. The evidence is overwhelming that the Workplace Reform Association was a sham from start to finish. “The AWU knew nothing about it. Contrary to AWU rules requiring no fewer than five members, it had no members other than Wilson and Blewitt. It had no business premises, it kept no books of account, was never audited, had no employees, provided no services, and large sums of money were regularly withdrawn from its account in cash. “All of this is established by the evidence of Blewitt, Ian Cambridge, Colin Saunders, Tony Lovett, George Dean, Brian Pulham and Steve Schalit, together with the documents: the incorporation documents, the bank statements and cheques, and the invoices. “In my view, there is substantial corroboration of (Blewitt’s) evidence from independent sources. What he says about the sham set-up and operation is corroborated by the evidence of the above witnesses, the documents mentioned above, and the circumstantial evidence, such as no members, no employees, no audit, no books of account and the fact that those in the AWU who could be expected to know about the association, if it was what it purported to be, knew nothing of it. “There is no doubt that large sums of money were regularly withdrawn from its account in cash, totalling over $400,000 between 1992 and 1995. There is no need to rely on the evidence of Blewitt for this. The bank documents speak for themselves. “And, despite some effort by Wilson’s counsel to establish that some training did, or might have, taken place, there is no doubt that no services were rendered by the association. There is no need to rely on Blewitt’s evidence for this.” Hanson says he considered three key questions. Was the slush fund set up with the intention of operating it as a sham? If so, who was a party to that arrangement? Who knowingly participated in receiving the proceeds obtained by illegal means? “There is no basis in the evidence that I have seen for inferring that there was, at the outset, an intention to operate a legitimate organisation,” he says. “This must be so in the case of Wilson and his willing henchman, Blewitt. Money paid into the fund was not going to be used for the purposes stated in the incorporation documents. “As for Gillard’s involvement, this is proved by her own admissions … her own statements show that she well understood the real purpose of the association was to fund election campaigns — a far cry from the idealistic objects set out in the incorporation documents. “As to the second question, clearly Wilson and Blewitt were the principal parties. What of Gillard’s involvement? Blewitt, for what it is worth, has her actively involved in the incorporation exercise. But in any event, by her own admission, she is the one who put together the documents necessary for incorporation. “As to the third question, receiving proceeds of money obtained by dishonest means, Blewitt, by his own admission, is guilty. Wilson is implicated by Blewitt. In Gillard’s case, a builder, Athol James, says he did work on her Abbotsford house. He has the quotes, invoices and bank deposit records to prove it. He says that, although she paid him with cheques, she told him Bruce was paying for this, and he saw Wilson hand her a ‘very substantial’ amount of money. “Gillard’s counsel challenged (James) on these two statements, but he did not budge. Without having seen him give evidence, but going on the transcript of his evidence and his documents, I don’t see any reason why a jury could not accept his evidence. “Apparently some apologists for Gillard seek to brush his evidence aside on the basis that he is 84 years old. This is ridiculous. Gillard herself admits he did work on her house for her. His critics need to come up with a more sensible reason for disbelieving him than sniggeringly pointing to his age. Try that one with a jury.” Hanson says that weight has been lent to James’s evidence by Hem, who testified that Wilson gave him $5000 cash to deposit to Gillard’s account, which he did. Hem said Wilson told him “no one else is to see it”. Hanson says the suggestion that Gillard did not pay for all of the renovation work done on her house has been lent weight by her Slater & Gordon 1995 interview, in which she said, “I can’t categorically rule out that something at my house didn’t (sic) get paid for by the association ... or by the union or whatever”. Latham, however, has claimed that the evidence of builder Kon Spyridis at the royal commission had “exonerated” Gillard. Spyridis testified that Gillard paid him by cheque in two instalments after he chased her up. Hanson says: “I understand that her apologists see this evidence as exculpating her. How this could be so escapes me. “Far from exculpating Gillard, I see his evidence as consistent with the picture painted by James of payments by cheque which were funded by cash from Wilson. If Hem’s deposit into her account corresponds in time and amount with payments by cheque to Spyridis, then the evidence from Spyridis consolidates the case against her of receiving cash payments from Wilson for her renovations. “There is no exculpation here. “In addition to the above witnesses, Blewitt also gives evidence that in September or October 1994 he went to Gillard’s house, where she directed him to go through the house to where Wilson was out the back. “At Wilson’s direction he then gave $7000 cash, which had come from the WRA account, to a tradesman working there on renovations. Gillard was not present. This evidence is consistent with the evidence of James as to Wilson paying for Gillard’s renovations. On that occasion, Blewitt gave further cash to Wilson.” Hanson says that if building company Thiess was unaware that its donations were not to be used for the association’s stated purposes of improving worker safety and skills, then Thiess was deceived into parting with its money, and each time there was a payment, an offence of obtaining money by false pretences was committed by those perpetrating the pretence. He says that if the deception of Thiess were planned, then all those who were a party to that plan were parties to a conspiracy to defraud. Alternatively, if Thiess were aware that there were no “training” services provided by the association but paid up for the sake of industrial peace, then the offence committed was obtaining money by menaces — blackmail. “Blewitt and Wilson are shown to be involved in these offences, as set out above,’’ Hanson says. “In Gillard’s case, once it is seen that she drafted the objects of the association, while knowing that its true purpose was otherwise, she is shown to be a party to a plan to defraud donors to the fund (conspiracy to defraud), or a party to a plan to extract money from ‘donors’ by blackmail. Proof that the association’s purpose was other than as stated is in her own words, where she describes it as a ‘slush fund’ for financing election campaigns. “In Gillard’s case, the evidence from James that Wilson was paying is both confessional and direct. She told him Bruce was paying (confessional evidence) and he saw cash handed to her by Wilson (direct evidence.) “There is also her acknowledgment that she could not rule out that money from the association paid for her renovations. “Whether or not the money Wilson gave her and her builders came from the association, and whether or not she knew that to be so, are matters of inference. In my opinion, they are inferences a jury would be entitled to draw.” Last night Ms Gillard issued a statement in which she said that, in her view, “this conduct by The Australian is improper”. “Evidence is still being taken and it is for the Royal Commissioner to make any relevant findings. It is therefore inappropriate to ask for and publish a pre-judgement of issues before a Royal Commission. “I also take the view that, other than reiterating my previous public statements that I have done nothing improper, it is inappropriate for me to provide comments to the media on matters before the Royal Commission. “I am issuing this statement solely because I believe readers of tomorrow’s edition of The Australian are entitled to this information in assessing Mr Thomas’s story.” The Australian’s editor-in-chief, Chris Mitchell, responded today: “Mark Latham, the former Labor leader, has been smearing witnesses at the Royal Commisson, the commission itself, and sworn evidence, in his columns in the Australian Financial Review and elsewhere in his defence of Julia Gillard. “Ms Gillard never expressed any concern in public about whether that conduct was improper. But when The Australian receives and publishes the considered opinion of a senior silk, who has analysed the evidence, her response is that we have acted inappropriately. “Readers can judge for themselves the double standards that are being displayed here.” EDITORIAL: Why we are publishing this TODAY The Australian is publishing an important story about Julia Gillard’s involvement in the AWU slush fund scandal. The story contains the considered opinion of a respected Queen’s Counsel — Russell Hanson QC — who has reviewed sworn testimony given at the union royal commission. The Australian does not publish this story lightly. However, the conduct and background of a person who would, just a few years after these events with the AWU, become an elected federal parliamentarian and, ultimately, be elevated to the highest office goes to the very heart of government and political matters in Australia. It matters not that Gillard is no longer the prime minister or in parliament. The scandal and Gillard’s alleged involvement in it was raised during her term as prime minister. They are matters that go directly to Gillard’s character. The fact her role in this has not been considered formally by a court is alone a matter of concern and of itself raises important issues concerning government and politics in Australia. The Australian is not suggesting Gillard is guilty of any offence. However, as Hanson notes, there is enough evidence to suggest that the matter should now be properly considered by a court and a jury. theaustralian.au/news/features/office-of-pm-always-warrants-scrutiny/story-e6frg6z6-1227018506482
Posted on: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 04:06:44 +0000