My apologies to Corey D who sent me a couple of emails the night before last with details of the de-registration of the dodgy, sham, fictional - yet strangely highly profitable - slush fund set up by one Julia Eileen Gillard for the boyfriend's use-as-you-will ask-no-questions but I-did-nothing-wrong re-election and safe-workplaces purposes.

I thank Corey for the research.   When you walk away from a rumbled slush fund that has ceased to be a conduit for ill-gotten gains, I suspect that the last few days are probably not allocated to the submission of paper-work of a tidy and complete nature so as to advise properly taxation, corporate affairs and investigating authorities as to the whole of the information that might be of assistance in their endeavours to bring you to account.

Thus I think the AWU-WRA languished amongst the corporate leviathans of its day, the Quintex's, the Ansetts, the Laurie Connells and the other friends it found at the bottom-of-the-habour until someone twigged that safe work places somehow managed to survive the cessation of workplace reform activities spearheaded by the innovations produced at the AWU-WRA.

It might be possible (now that the date of its passing has been discovered by talented historians) that a public holiday ought to be struck in commemoration of the reforms it pioneered in the way we labour -  made by possible only by the early career of a genourous and community-spirited  Prime Minister, who did it all for free and was so self-less as to ensure that no file, no record and no public confirmation was available to record her magnaminity.

All Hail the Leader!

Yesterday I wrote this letter to the Slater and Gordon Managing Director

I have now reviewed the partial information released by Victoria Police about its investigation into Wilson and The AWU Scandal in 1995.

The file released by the police does not include witness statements and it's heavily redacted.  It's therefore difficult to follow much of the investigating officer's logic leading to a conclusion that no offences were detected.

Keep in mind that this investigation was concluded before the discovery of the Australian Workers' Union Workplace Reform Association.   It also appears that Wilson was not interviewed by police.

On the material available in the file, it appears that the investigating officers concentrated on the funds dispersed from AWU Members Welfare Association No 1 Account.   Here is a copy of the cash withdrawals from that account by Wilson.

Here is the investigating officer's report to his superiors at the conclusion of his investigation on 30 May, 1996.

Download Vic POlice write off matter - May 1995

Harry Nowicki was the applicant for this file.   He has reviewed it and today has written to Victoria Police with these comments.

Download Redacted harry re vic police foi

I would reiterate to Victoria Police that there are changed circumstances since their brief investigation.

Ralph Blewitt has made certain admissions about serious indictable offences in Victoria.   He has stated that he will be fully co-operative with police in return for immunity from prosecution for the offences he has committed.  

Since Victoria Police's initial investigation, the evidence of the purchase of 1/85 Kerr Street Fitzroy, the apparently back-dated and falsely created Power of Attorney and the discovery of the Australian Workers' Union Workplace Reform Association have come to light.

I'll let you know about the response to Harry's letter.

This is the version as amended by your comments.   Thanks so much to Dr John Lourens for your expertise in putting this together.

This document has been prepared in good faith relying on the sworn evidence in the affidavit of Ian Walter Cambridge sworn 19 September 1996 in Ludwig v Harrison and Ors, 2082/96 in the Australian Industrial Relations Court.

Any errors or omissions are unintentional.   This synopsis is not presented as having evidentiary value, rather it's a financial accountant's statement provided as a guide to cash flows during the scandal.

UPDATED - We need this now more than ever.   Imagine Ian Cambridge's shock at the discovery 4 months later of the AWU-Workplace Reform Association.   Then try to imagine his shock last year when Julia Gillard's admissions made in September, 1995 (4 months before this submission) were made public!

As Sir Gerard Brennan AC noted in an address to the Queensland Bar Association on 3 May 1992:

The first, and perhaps the most important, thing to be said about ethics is that they cannot be reduced to rules. Ethics are not what the barrister knows he or she should do: ethics are what the barrister does. They are not so much learnt as lived. Ethics are the hallmark of a profession, imposing obligations more exacting than any imposed by law and incapable of adequate enforcement by legal process. If ethics were reduced merely to rules, a spiritless compliance would soon be replaced by skilful evasion. There is no really effective forum for their enforcement save individual acceptance and peer expectation. However, among those who see themselves as members of a profession, peer expectation is sufficient to maintain the profession’s ethical code. Ethics give practical expression to the purpose for which a profession exists, so a member who repudiates the ethical code in effect repudiates members of the profession. It follows that if we are to gain an understanding of the ethics of the Bar, we must first ask ourselves whether the Bar is truly a profession and as certain the purpose for which it exists. Only then can we see whether and how the ethics of the Bar express that purpose.

http://ethics.qls.com.au/content/ascr.html

You know there are some really great thinkers who write in here - well Paul is a lawyer who writes to me a fair bit and he always makes me sit up and take notice.   I've just re-read the note below from Paul about partnerships.  Paul's note is about the legal and ethical obligations on members of a legal partnership.  But when you think about it, partnerships are such a natural human relationship.   In the police I was generally paired up with a partner, someone I'd literally entrust my life to.

Marriage, business - even small projects; being able to relate to each other and to recognise the importance of the give and take in partnerships is a key part of being a fully functional person.   We must learn from the tragedy that someone so lacking in the awareness or care about her obligations to her partners could now be responsible for the laws that affect all of us.

Michael,

One of the more extraordinary admissions in the draft statement of Peter Gordon published some time ago in The Australian was that the partners of Slater & Gordon considered that Julia Gillard and her then unnamed colleague had in certain respects not acted with the "utmost good faith" towards their fellow partners. 

This is a most important principle of partnership law, which is applicable in any partnership, not just a firm of solicitors. To refresh my memory on the significance of the principle I found this interesting description of the principle on the website of Russell Jones & Walker which is a UK firm of solicitors which ironically has apparently only very recently become a part of Slater & Gordon! (see both links below)

What seems to have been glossed over in the commentary about the circumstances of Julia Gillard's departure from S&G is just how seriously a breach of this utmost good faith principle is regarded as a matter of partnership law.

Regards

Paul

http://www.rjw.co.uk/legal-services/business-services/partnerships/duties-of-partners-to-each-other-and-to-third-parties/#axzz24Fi3uqU7

http://www.rjw.co.uk/firm-information/slater-gordon/#axzz24Fi3uqU7

I have called in favours all over Melbourne and throughout the AWU trying to get a copy of this letter.

I've been unable to locate one.   If you can help I'd be in your debt.

I take it on good faith that the member for Glen Waverley Mr Smith had a copy of the letter in his hand as he read this into the Hansard.   So what you'll read is what the Hansard reporter wrote down as Mr Smith read out the letter, that's why it's a little disjointed.

I think this letter is one of the most  important pieces on the historical register about unions and unionism in Australia.  I'll post Cambridge's letter to the Industrial Relations Minister Laurie Brereton soon.  For now, here's the reaction to it in the form of this letter from the Victorian Branch Secretary Bob Smith to Steve Harrison, a Joint National Secretary.

Mr SMITH (Glen Waverley) -- I refer to a letter addressed to the joint national secretary of the AWU, Steve Harrison, which states:

Dear Steve,
Further to our telephone discussion this morning, I propose the following resolution to be put to national executive next month.
As we have discussed, you know as well as I do that if Cambridge is not stopped we are all history. I have spoken to Bill Kelty and Jennie George, and they are supportive of this course of action. Both you and I can work the phones before the national executive meeting to make sure we have the numbers before this motion is put. I have already spoken to a number of national executive and they are very nervous to say the least. Please ring when you have considered my proposal.
It goes on to a preamble:
1. That on 23 January 1996, joint national secretary Ian Cambridge wrote to the federal minister ... calling for the establishment of a royal commission or judicial inquiry ...
It further states that Cambridge wrote that letter without approval of senior officers, and the motion is that:
3. This national executive determines that the membership is entitled to have this matter dealt with expeditiously. Consequently, national executive requests the ACTU to appoint an independent person ...
(a) the ... allegations raised by I. Cambridge
(b) to investigate all allegations relating to any branch, activity ...
(c) to investigate any matters ...
By the way, there was neither a judicial inquiry nor a royal commission. Cambridge was appointed to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Court. I call for a full, open judicial inquiry. The other addressees on the letter were Bill Shorten, Terry Muscat, Graham Ray and Frank Leo.
The letter was written by Robert F. Smith, branch secretary.
The SPEAKER -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired.

A few points jump out at me beyond the obvious "we're all history" if a Royal Commission was appointed.   You have to wonder what else was then known of which would be uncovered by a commission of enquiry.

The member for Glen Waverley certainly drew a causative link between the cessation of agitation for an enquiry and Cambridge's appointment to the bench by the NSW Government (Carr).

The response to Cambridge's call from Bob Smith, and according to Bob Smith from Jennie George and Bill Kelty, was to have the ACTU appoint a person to enquire.   Haven't we seen enough of that in-house, cosy enquiry of late?

Some free advice for Slater and Gordon.   I have received maybe a couple of dozen notes today from people who have seen the Slater and Gordon email bulletin.

Memo to Slater and Gordon marketing people - you've hit a nerve with your promotion of the brand attribute "Australia's most trusted".   

This note is from a policeman whom I know through correspondence on the blog.  He sent the original to Andrew Grech the MD at Slater and Gordon earlier today.  I just love reading these sorts of insights into how other people feel about issues that I feel strongly about too.