I am perplexed by a very important issue.

Ian Cambridge produced his prodigious affidavit in September 1996.   A number of exhibits to the affidavit were apparently obtained under subpoena to Slater and Gordon and returned to the Industrial Relations Court in matter 2082/96.

The difference between the documents produced as exhibits to Cambridge's affidavit and the actual material in the conveyancing file held at Slater and Gordon is very significant.

Here is a list of  the Cambridge exhibits.

IWC24 - Contract of sale and the form T1, it's the contract of sale signed on the day of the auction with the words Ralph Blewitt as per Power of Attorney.

IWC 25 - letter to Blewitt dated 18th March, 1993.   It calls for the cheque for $67,722.30 to complete the sale.   Cambridge also attaches a copy of the cheque, but probably inferred incorrectly that the cheque must have been handled by a Slater and Gordon employee.   That is apparently not the case, both Blewitt and Slater and Gordon say the funds were telegraphically transferred with the actual cheque presented over the counter at a bank branch in Perth.

ICW26 - Cambridge lists this as a copy of the trust account ledger from Slater and Gordon.   However it differs from the more comprehensive trust account ledger in the Slater and Gordon file released to Ralph Blewitt.   There is no mention on Cambridge's material produced to the court of Gillard writing off the fees.

ICW27 - a copy of the letter from Slater and Gordon to Ralph Blewitt informing him that Slater and Gordon typographically mis-stated the final settlement figure.  That left a discrepancy of $2,000 in the trust account.  The letter calls on Blewitt to make up the $2,000.   Cambridge's affidavit does not include the 3 letters that were required to get payment, nor the internal file note that includes Gillard's handwriting in delivering the cheque.

Cambridge's affidavit includes a title search in relation to the property and the transfer of land document from Blewitt's eventual sale of the property in 1996.

And that is the sum-total of the material.   

The difference between the scope of material produced here and what found its way into Cambridge's statement and thus until the past few days the "public record" is breathtaking.

No mention of the Power of Attorney document.

No mention of any of the mortgage preparation documents, the AWU Accountant's letter re Blewitt's income, the various letters sent to Wilson and not Blewitt.

The version of events in Cambridge's affidavit is frightening enough - but it's a model of mundane normalcy compared to the actual file.

A few caveats, I have not seen Cambridge's subpoena so I dont' know the wording.   The subpoena is referred to on the cover sheet of the Slater's file, including a notation that the file at Slater's is a copy of material sent to the Industrial Relations Court.  But it's clear that people have  made decisions about what went in to Cambridge's affidavit and perhaps what was returned to the Court itself.

I don't know who made the decision about what was read into evidence before Judge Madgwig and what was exhibited to Cambridge's affidavit.  But the conclusion that some specific material harmful to Gillard's, Wilson's and perhaps Slater and Gordon's interests was not seen by the court is clear.   The file I now have proves the material existed, it would be very difficult for the AWU to present a complete case to the Industrial Relations Court without that material before it.

Here is the note on the file released to Blewitt about the material sent to the court on return of the subpoena.

The hand-written notes are important.  "GLS and JMR have approved contents".

I don't know a GLS but someone reading this will.   JMR may have been John Malcolm Rothfield responsible for the mortgage.

The other names are P, Tracy and PT.   Perhaps P and PT are the same person.   A Royal Commission of Enquiry would summons them all and find out who decided what went in and on what grounds.

On the face of it, the Industrial Relations Court saw material that might have satisfied a cursory investigation that Slater and Gordon had done the conveyancing, but nothing incriminating Gillard was before the court (she at that time was parliamentary Labor party leader John Brumby's Chief of Staff) and the material giving rise to doubts about Slater and Gordon's work was limited.   I make no allegations against anyone, but the differences in the material available and the material before the court is breathtaking.