Julie Bishop's Goldman Sachs speech - she LOVES globalisation, international law bodies and redistributing wealth

Our Julie is very proud of her keynote address to open the Goldman Sachs Global Conference.

The Foreign Minister spoke to the firm formerly led by the Prime Minister about globalisation, redistributing wealth, the importance of global lawmaking bodies, the worry of Brexit and the 'challenges' posed by the election of President Trump. 

But she's conservative, a plain speaker and loyal (to Goldmans, the UN, Malcolm, the Clintons et al) as the day is long!

Screen Shot 2017-02-24 at 8.04.53 pm


No wonder Gillard wanted to hide the Trust Fund she set up for Bruce Wilson

This is the original Trust Deed for the AWU Fatal Accident and Death Benefits Fund.

Screen Shot 2017-02-24 at 9.19.53 am Screen Shot 2017-02-24 at 9.20.04 am

Note the Trustees are the gentlemen trustees of the AWU Mining Division.

This is the Title Deed to the property at Burt Street purchased by the Trust.  You will note the registered proprietor was the AWU West Australian Branch Industrial Union of Workers as at 6 May 1986.

Screen Shot 2017-02-24 at 9.33.43 am




Today I received this professional opinion on the Trust Fund Gillard set up for Bruce Wilson, stamped on 23 April 1992, the same day as the AWU WRA Application for incorporation was lodged.

Download AWU Fatal Accident Trust Deed stamped 23 April 1992

Points to Note (especially pt 10)

1. Burt St was already in the name of the state registered Union from 6/5/86.

2. The April 92 deed was signed a s a result of a resolution of the (State) Union on 30/3/92. There is a notation in the titles office docs that these minutes were sighted.

3. The declaration of Trust dated 23/10/92 was only made to satisfy the then S55 of the Transfer of Land Act.

The current section is shown below


55 .         Trusts 

        (1)         The Registrar shall not enter on a certificate of title notice of any trusts other than those set out in the body of the original Crown grant or certificate of title or contained or referred to in the transfer, or the ministerial order for the conveyance, of the relevant Crown land into the fee simple. 

        (2)         Where a trust is declared in any other document and the document or a copy of it has been deposited with the Registrar, the Registrar may cause the document or copy to be kept for safe custody and reference but shall not register the document. 

        (3)         The Commissioner may protect, in any manner he thinks fit, the rights of the persons for the time being beneficially interested in, or required to give consent under, a trust a record of which is kept under subsection (2). 

        (4)         The rights incidental to any proprietorship, instrument, dealing or matter registered under this Act shall not be affected by the keeping of a record of a trust under subsection (2). 

        [Section 55 inserted by No. 81 of 1996 s. 29; amended by No. 31 of 1997 s. 96; No. 6 of 2003 s. 19.] 

4.The Stat dec only relates to the 10/92 Deed. The Trustee is the state Union and Bruce Wilson has the power to affix its seal.

In practice however he would have done whatever he wanted.

5.The 4/92 deed evidences a settlement made by the Mining division Committee of the state Union. $301,000 plus the State Union declared it held Burt St on trust.

6.The range of Beneficiaries is not limited to AWU members working in Mining. Wilson could have taken the lot. He could have made the payment to Kernohan from here. He could have set up an entity in the Channel Isles with him as the sole beneficiary and paid over all the assets.

7. Persons in the mining industry can become contributors. The Trustee can pay benefits on the death of Financial contributors. The benefit is $2,500 or such other amount determined ie the $2,500 is not necessarily what will be paid. These persons are within the definition of primary beneficiaries.

8. Subject to any benefit declared but not paid as above the Trustee has an absolute discretion to distribute or lend or advance to any Beneficiary for their own use ant part of the Fund. Clause 4(b). They can deal with anyone they wish notwithstanding any connection to the Trustee Clause7.

9.If that isn’t enough the Trustee can alter the terms of the Trust any time they like. Clause 12.

10. So Gillard has put Wilson in a position where he can effectively do whatever he wants with this Trust Fund.

She has had at least this exposure to Discretionary Trusts.

If she really wanted an election fund allowing for contributors but preventing any split on persons withdrawing didn’t she have a perfect example here of how to do it.

BUT there may have been a bit of a problem getting a Corporate Trustee with the right name AND not so easy to avoid some attention from the Tax Office BUT compared with the problems of getting the WRA incorporated; a piece of cake.

So why go to all that trouble. She has got away with blue murder.

Much more on this soon.

Julie Bishop doesn't see any problems for the Liberal Party with their Labor lite policies.

Screen Shot 2017-02-24 at 4.27.26 am

“To the characterisation about plain speaking, I believe I fill that characterisation.’’

Julie, how about, "I'm a plain speaker".

Overnight Tony Abbott launched James Allen's book "Making Australia Right'.  It sets out what's wrong with the place, particularly post-Turnbull.

On the strength of Mr Abbott's speech I think he's on the right track.  

The Liberals have huge problems.  But Julie Bishop doesn't see them.  So dismissive.  So above it all.  And so, so wrong. 

Here's The Australian.

Speaking in London this morning, Ms Bishop said hadn’t seen Mr Abbott’s manifesto “Making Australia Right’’ but she didn’t agree with Mr Abbott’s assertion that the party was drifting to defeat at the next election.

“I don’t recognise that characterisation at all,’’ Ms Bishop said.

Ms Bishop said the Liberal Party welcomed all policy initiatives from both ministers and backbenchers and said Mr Abbott was entitled to suggest ideas.

When asked if Mr Abbott was doing to the Liberals what Kevin Rudd did to Labour, with comments being interpreted as undermining the Prime Minister, Ms Bishop replied: “I don’t think so.

“Others might interpret it that way but I certainly don’t. Malcolm Turnbull enjoys the support of the party room.’’ 

Mr Abbott had told Sky News last night: “Plainly we are facing many challenges, the Cory Bernardi breakaway a couple of weeks back, and One Nation support is surging.

“If you want a good government you really have no option but to back the Liberal-National Coalition, but plainly there are lots of people concerned about our direction.

“And plainly the risk is we will drift to defeat if we don’t lift our game.”

Ms Bishop also defended herself against suggestions that was put to Mr Abbott on television that she was not Conservative, not plain speaking and not loyal.

“Well I think I am a pretty plain speaker but others can judge that. I have been elected by the party as the deputy leader, I have been elected by the party room and I owe my loyalty to the party room and I continue to be elected and that is the way it is.

“To the characterisation about being conservative and plain speaking and loyal I believe I fill that characterisation.’’


Here's Tony's speech.


THIS (Making Australia Right) is an important book because of what it says about our collective state of mind. Many of the people who normally support Coalition governments aren’t happy.

They are publishing their own ways to “make Australia right” because, they think, the government is not up to it.

It’s a cri de coeur from people who think that Labor is moving to the green left and that the Coalition has become Labor lite.

A sense of disappointment and disillusionment pervades these essays: disappointment with the

Abbott government and perhaps even despair about the Turnbull government; but what saves it

from being a curmudgeon’s lament is the palpable sense, in every contribution, that our party and our country can be better.

To editor Jim Allan and to many of the other authors, the government has done much wrong; and what it’s done right hasn’t been right enough.

These criticisms aren’t always fair. Still, unless we heed the message from people who think that we have let them down, a book like this can become the thinking person’s justification for voting One Nation.

After all, the Making Australia Right authors are not the only ones who are disappointed and disillusioned.

At last year’s election, 24 per cent voted for minor parties and independents, 5 per cent spoiled their ballot papers and 9 per cent didn’t even turn up to vote. That’s nearly 40 per cent of the electorate that couldn’t bring themselves to vote for either of the two parties that have governed us for 100 years.

And it’s worse now. In Queensland, polls have the Coalition vote 8 percentage points down since

the election and One Nation 12 percentage points up.

It’s easy enough to see why.

We have the world’s biggest reserves of energy — yet we have some of world’s highest power prices.

We have land in abundance — yet Sydney’s house prices are close to Hong Kong’s.

We have among the-world’s highest labour costs and heaviest regulatory burdens.

Of course, we’re agile and we’re innovative and we’re the world’s most successful immigrant society — but Kazakhstan, apparently, now outranks us in education achievement and we’re no longer the place where everyone wants to invest.

It’s true that to be an Australian — almost any Australian — is to have won the lottery of life but it won’t stay that way unless we lift our game.

And yes, there’s an opposition in denial about the problems it created when in office; there’s a

populist senate; there’s a media that often mistakes insider gossip for serious journalism; and

there’s a public that demands to enjoy things today but to put off paying for them.

Still, the government’s job is to face up to these challenges and to overcome them. It’s harder than ever but it still has to be done.

So here’s the big question: what should a sensible centre-right government be doing now?

All the contributors to Making Australia Right have useful things to say but perhaps the best

description of the centre-right’s dilemma comes from Gary Johns who says:

“The Right believes in less taxation and less government interference in people’s lives: in short,

liberty. But in a world where more Australians vote for their money than work for it, and the

constituency beholden to government for benefits and jobs is expanding, the constituency for

winning votes with tax cuts and de-regulation is diminishing”.

“Selling stringency and insecurity” says Johns, “is not going to win elections”.

Rather, he says, “the Right have to advance a cultural debate in conjunction with the economic one.

The Right have to promote a discussion that has, at worst, no cost to the budget and builds a

constituency. It is not a case of ‘bread and circuses’, of creating diversions, but of the necessity to build a constituency that trusts government to be less intrusive. It is a necessity (in order) to

overcome the shameless bribery that all politicians indulge in, but especially the left”.

Johns says — and as a former Labor minister he should know what the left is up to — that “the

pathway to a liberal society will be ... to win constituencies without bribing them”. Yet, he says, “to achieve a ... society ... that is more liberal and governed by contract rather than by ideology will take a cultural revolution”.

In the long run, we do indeed need a conservative version of the left’s “long march through the

institutions”. We do need to make it respectable again to be liberal on economic questions and

conservative on social ones.

In the short run, though, we have to win the next election. That means finding policy that’s

philosophically acceptable, economically responsible and politically saleable.

One of the most timely and important essays is Alan Moran’s on energy policy. He methodically

exposes the disastrous muddle successive governments have created.

We are sleepwalking towards what the head of BlueScope said this week was an energy policy


My government reduced the renewable energy target from 28 per cent to 23 per cent. It wasn’t

enough but it was a step in the right direction and it was the best we could get through the senate at the time.

Now, almost two years on, people are starting to wake up to our danger: due to the 24 hour statewide blackout in South Australia — where traffic lights went out, cash registers didn’t work, people

were trapped in lifts and patients were sent home from hospital; and the power failures in other

states, like the one that badly damaged the Alcoa smelter and jeopardised 10,000 jobs.

I’m all in favour of renewables, provided they’re economic and provided they don’t jeopardise

security of supply; but, at the moment, we have a policy-driven disaster because you just can’t rely on renewable power.

In the absence of better storage, the renewable energy target should be called the intermittent

energy target or the unreliable energy target because when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind

doesn’t blow, the power won’t flow.

But it’s not Labor’s even more disastrous 50 per cent renewable target that’s caused the problem — it’s the existing renewable target which the government has no plans to change. Indeed, under the government’s plans, wind generation is supposed to double in the next three years at a capital cost to you the consumer of $10 billion.

The government is now talking about using the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to subsidise a new coal-fired power station; creating, if you like, a base-load target to supplement the renewable target.

We subsidise wind to make coal uneconomic so now we are proposing to subsidise coal to keep the lights on. Go figure. Wouldn’t it be better to abolish subsidies for new renewable generation and let ordinary market forces do the rest?

Of course, that would trigger the mother-of-all-brawls in the senate, but what better way to let

voters know that the Coalition wants your power bill down, while Labor wants it up?

The likelihood of defeat in the senate never stopped the Howard government trying to change the

unfair dismissal laws. Over forty times we tried and failed and each attempt meant that we burnished our small business credentials and Labor damaged theirs.


We’ve got to face up to the damage being done by green schemes that seemed like a good idea at the time — and we’ve also got to face up to the damage that the senate is doing; how it’s making good government in this country almost impossible.

The senate sabotage of the 2014 budget was blamed on poor salesmanship but my successor’s

difficulties with far less sweeping measures show that the problem is less the salesman than the


It’s almost impossible for the government of the day to have a senate majority in its own right

because it’s almost impossible to get the 57 per cent of the vote needed to win four senators out of six in any state.

This doesn’t matter much for governments that want higher spending, more regulation and heavier taxes (at least on the so-called rich); the senate will always vote for those. But it matters a great deal for governments that want the reverse.

The cross bench is good at grievance but it’s never going to take responsibility for cutting spending, upsetting lobby groups, and reducing taxes on businesses and high income earners.

That’s why the senate has changed from a house of review to a house of rejection. The result is

gridlock, not government, and — for our country’s sake — it can’t go on.

John Howard recognised this back in 2003. A government policy paper recommended changing

section 57 of the constitution to allow legislation that’s been rejected twice in the senate three

months apart to go to a joint sitting without the need for a double dissolution election.

The government didn’t proceed with this reform because it fluked four out of six senators in

Queensland in 2004 and, for one term, more-or-less controlled the senate.

But it’s now high time to reconsider the Howard proposal.

The government should consider taking this reform to the people simultaneously with the next

election. Let’s make the next election about government versus gridlock

That way, if it’s carried, the government will be able to reduce spending, as well as to raise it; to cut taxes, as well as to increase them; and to limit the size of government, as well as to boost it.

That way, the next election will be about the kind of country that we want: one where the

government tells you what it’s going to do and does it; or tells you what it’s going to do but doesn’t because the senate won’t let it.

The next election is winnable.

If we stop pandering to climate change theology and freeze the RET, we can take the pressure off power prices.

If we end the “big is best” thinking of the federal Treasury, and scaled back immigration (at least until housing starts and infrastructure have caught up), we can take the pressure off home prices.

If we take our own rhetoric about budget repair seriously and avoid all new spending and cut out all frivolous spending, we will start to get the deficit down.

If we refuse to be the ATM for the states, there might be finally be some micro-economic reform of our public education and public health systems.

If we stop funding the Human Rights Commission and leave protecting our liberties to the

parliament, the courts and a free press where they belong, we might start to look like the defenders of western civilisation that we aspire to be.And of course, we have to keep committed to secure borders, not give up on free trade agreements that give our exporters a fair go, and ensure that our armed forces are about protecting the country not just creating jobs in Adelaide.

In short, why not say to the people of Australia: we’ll cut the RET, to help with your power bills; we’ll cut immigration, to make housing more affordable; we’ll scrap the Human Rights Commission, to stop official bullying; we’ll stop all new spending, to end ripping off our grandkids; and we’ll reform the senate to have government, not gridlock?

Our challenge is to be worth voting for. It’s to win back the people who are giving up on us like the Making Australia Right authors.

It won’t be easy but it must be possible or our country is doomed to a Shorten government that will make a bad situation immeasurably worse.

In or out of government, political parties need a purpose. Our politics can’t be just a contest of toxic egos or someone’s vanity project.

What is worth striving for; how can we make a difference; and what must change if Australians

individually and collectively are to come closer to our best selves?

That’s the challenge that our side of politics needs to ponder. There’s much work to be done but the authors of this book, quite rightly, are demanding that we come to grips with it — fast.


Tony Abbott MP launching the book “Making Australia Right” in Sydney

Police have not contacted the complainant in GILLARD forgery 120 days after complaint

Today I sent the Commonwealth DPP and Attorney General this letter.

Michael Smith <bexleyborn@gmail.com>

8:05 AM (0 minutes ago)
FOR MS McNaughton SC
CC The Attorney General
Dear Ms McNaughton,
On 25 October 2016 I made a report to you regarding serious indictable offences arising from the Trade Union Royal Commission concluding with this paragraph:
For the avoidance of doubt, I am reporting this matter to you as a report of serious indictable offences.  Given the use of the apparently false instruments at the TURC in the process of it hearing false and misleading evidence and the Commissioner's acceptance (in the absence of any enquiries having been made about their provenance) of the Exhibits as good and valid copies of the documents they purport to be, the use of the false instruments is an ongoing offence (particularly to the purported author) and the record should be corrected.
Yesterday I received a note from the former Commissioner for Corporate Affairs in West Australia Ray Neal, the man who says he did not write nor sign nor authorise any person to create or use the letter purporting to be from him.
Mr Neal said there has been, "...no contact to date" from police or any authority.
I needn't remind you Madam these are very serious offences.  The former Commissioner for Corporate Affairs held a high and responsible office.  He alleges a letter in an important and now notorious matter purporting to have been written and signed by him is not the document it purports to be.
Mr Neal is a central complainant in this matter.  I would expect police to be disciplined for misconduct if a burgled homeowner had not been interviewed 120 days after a complaint had been lodged.  
Perhaps you might be so kind as to advise me whether or not you believe the investigative response to the now 120 day old report of serious indictable offences has been appropriate.
May I again thank you Madam and your office for its prompt and complete response to my report in the first instance and your advice as to your referral to police for further action.   
Or inaction as the case may be.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Smith

Settling the Trust Fund/Slush Fund defamation matter. The Australian v GILLARD

Screen Shot 2017-02-22 at 5.32.22 pm


I think we all remember that.

She must have forgotten about this.

Screen Shot 2017-02-22 at 5.36.11 pm

Notice the date it was filed?

23 April 1992.

Same date as Ralph was instructed to file the AWU WRA application for incorporation.

Screen Shot 2017-02-22 at 4.28.18 pm

I've always wondered why Ralph wrote 21 April, 1992, then scratched it out to 22 April, 1992, then didn't file it until 23 April 1992.

Screen Shot 2017-02-22 at 5.45.54 pm

Maybe because on 23 April 1992 GILLARD knew she'd be in Melbourne with a heap of alibi witnesses.

Screen Shot 2017-02-22 at 5.49.18 pm Screen Shot 2017-02-22 at 5.50.11 pm

The Trust Fund is not related to the AWU WRA Inc.

But Gillard's fingerprints are all over it.

And so are her actions in concert with Bruce Wilson.

One of the central tenets to a successful prosecution of their conspiracy to cheat and defraud.

Every touch leaves its trace.