I thought Col's comment was worth a bit of space here for your reactions
From The Age today. Swannie is on something and not sharing.

This comment from noteworthy comment-maker Michael prompted some post-prandial reflection from me last night

I was moderating comments last night after dinner and this one from Michael stood out.

So I jumped on the audioboo bizzo to get my thoughts recorded.

Here in their unedited, first version glory are the comment and my non RBT reaction.

Michael said:

I like the new rule of jurisprudence introduced by bob kernoghan. If he swears an affidavit, and sincerely believes someone has stoen a million dollars it follows that they have. I thought the existing rule was that George Brandi's, QC, makes an allegation in his learned QC,s opinion then that,s the end of he story. Now we just need bob,s affidavit, since there is no chance bob is mistaken, doesnt know the full facts or the law. So much easier than that boring old court case were both sides tell their story, and evidence is tested, and there may be QCs or SCs on both sides of the case, each saying, in their learned opinion their side of the case is right.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Does this mean that Ashby will , now, get a full hearing, and the defence will also need to put their case before the Court?


Smithy, I know you are just trying to be nice, but I have also been reading the "Michael" comments and I can honestly say that this person does not have a clue! Look at the way that he is deliberately misinterpreting Bob Kernohan.

Where does Bob say that his affidavit is sufficient to show the guilt of Gillard? He does not do that. What Bob has done is set out to the best of his knowledge the records of the events surrounding the disappearance of AWU funds worth more than $1 million. What Bob has done is to show that Gillard had a much bigger role in the whole affair than the one to which she will admit.

I agree that the only place that this can be tested is in a court of law.

BTW Michael is a terrible commenter, he seems to deliberately twists facts to suit his particular agenda.

John Greybeard

I agree with both Michaels. It should be tested in court. But it can only be tested if either the police lay charges, the Union presses charges or the Prime Minister sues one or more of the people making the allegations.

There is perhaps another way, it hasn't been used for a long time, but it is summonsing a person (and the PM is a person) to appear before the bar of the Senate. Perhaps Mr Brandis QC might like to clarify the last point.

Happy New Election Year.


I would love nothing more than Gillard to do as Bob has done and swear a statuary declaration.




Michael ain't too flash in the use of apostrophes, is he?

R we there yet

Mr Smith. somefolks defend others for various reasons.
I know this much, IF they had the true courage to see how the other side were really affected, then they may just understand.
Plainly there are real victims, real losses, many lives affected still to this day .Not just one .
When it really does affect them, then there will be a full reversal .
A TOTAL switch and full thorough understanding .It is that simple.
While ever corruption goes on neglected, ignored it exacerbates grows and inflates.When fraud affects them or legal wrongdoing , etc etc..They will totally understand, when they lose `their job, their opportunity`.
It does not exempt select families No no no.. their turn shall come due to total lack of respect.
Their children are indeed next, their parents, their grandchildren, friends. neighbours.
People do change jobs, health can play a role, people move.Power roles change ,trust shifts.
There is no real way some are immune or untouchable.
Real is real.Truth does and will triumph.

The Old and Unimproved Dave

And you went hot-air ballooning the next day, eh Michael?

So, by now I guess you've discovered that when the burners come on, which they not infrequently do, they do it with a 'whooph!' bordering on a 'bang!'....?


Keep up what you're doing Michael because as you saw from Emmo's article you posted y'day, no matter the whitewashing attempts, if there's truth in the issue then it's always going to grate. Why else would someone who is as shrewd in political strategy as Emmo would even bother spending much time of AWU scandal and Craig Thomson?
Emmo seriously should break himself clear from Gillard/Swan politics.
No manner of bluff or attempted beat-down of a stoic messenger like yourself will succeed because too many of us who are onto it can vote. I got called 'wanker' on twitter. Well, it only takes one hand to hold that pencil over the ballot paper ;)

The Old and Unimproved Dave

I'm of the opinoin that, on Federal Election Night, there'll be something different on the faces of certain Labor identities when they do their concession speeches.

Normally the look on their faces progresses from nervousness to panic to resignation. But watch for the barely-suppressed panic to return during the concession speeches as they finally face the fact that Labor no longer has the reins of office between it and charges being laid.


@ Michael.
We are in the unique position of knowing much of what took place in the Wilson/Gillard/Blewitt/S & G/AWU Fraud scandal 16-21 years ago, and having the results of two investigations, one detailed in a recorded and transcribed interview in which specific allegations were put and one detailed in affidavit form. Both were carried out at the time and in addition further information is given in a Statutory Declaration and parts of statements from others involved . These were made when events were still fresh in their minds, but some only became publicly available in redacted form two months ago.

On the other hand, Gillard has never offered a defence in any form or in any place in which she could be held accountable. Instead, she has constantly repeated three excuses.
1. I was young and naive. Absolute rubbish and provably so!
2. I did no wrong. Absolute rubbish and provably so.
3. I acted as a solicitor

As a solicitor, she had a cast iron obligation to act in accordance with Rules of Practice as laid down in the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958.

That did not include creating a conflict of interest by:
(a) entering a long-term intimate relationship with an employee of her main client:
(b) failing to inform her main client of that fact;
(c) as a salaried partner, failing to inform her employers, the equity partnership of S & G:
(d) failing to act with utmost good faith and make timely disclosure to them. The conflict of interest made them vulnerable in regard to Professional Indemnity.

Any wilful and and reckless contravention of the Act under which her Practising Certificate was granted constituted grounds for a finding of professional misconduct! Even without all her subsequent transgressions, one does not need to be a lawyer to know she did do wrong!

Julia Gillard playeed a pivotal role in all matters related to the unlawful entity she personally named the Australian Worker's Union Workplace Reform Association , and it is fair to say that the subsequent fraudulent use of AWU monies could not have taken place in the same form without the unauthorised bank accounts her actions enabled her lover to open. There certainly would not have been a purchase of the 85 Kerr St., property through S & G.

I believe the aim of most posters here is to get her into court where all allegations could be tested. One would think that if she really believes she "did nothing wrong" she would be just as anxious to have the chance to clear her name!


Michael (not Mr Smith!),

Of course it requires more than an affidavit from Mr Kernohan and a QC opinion of the Shadow Attorney General to cast a verdict of guilty/not guilty.

The point is, there are many others of reputable opinion, based on their observations at the time of the alleged fraud, plus a plethora of gathered 'alleged' discrepencies, to call the behaviour of certain persons into question.

A Prime Minister must be held more accountable for honesty and integrity than any other citizen. It is a responsibility that a PM undertakes in representing the people of Australia.

To date, the current PM, has not answered questions that cast doubt over her integrity and honesty. Indeed, she has treated the Australian people with contempt by bestowing the mantle of 'judgement' onto two gatherings of media hacks, rather than front the people in their House of Representatives.

Like the song: "From little things", (like ommitting to create a file whilst establishing a legal entity and advising an association, that 'allegedly' didn't exist, on incorporation), "big things", (like a vehicle for corruption), "grow".

No doubt, you would support a Royal Commission to determine the truth and put the whole matter to rest?

I do agree with your comment (somewhere here), that raising certain 'dalliances' doesn't do much for 'the cause'. There would probably be many vacant seats in the Parliament if members were tossed out for those kinds of indiscretions. Only the legal implications (not moral) would be questioned by a Royal Commission ... as should be the case.

You know ... I kind of get a feeling of deja vu, reading your comments. Do we know each other?


Maybe 'Michael' and Julia have some history....?


Thanks for getting back on track. This blog is about facts, evidence and hopefully justice. Blogger Michael - You are right. Lets have an inquiry and get to the bottom of the AWU-WRA affair. Somebody stole AWU money - the question is, who was it?


Michael what about my posts? arent they worthy in the comment arena? Maybe they have been posted but I cant find them, as much as everyone else I like to see them there.

bob kernohan

To Maggie 1954 @ 4.51pm and to Michael Smith, firstly Michael thank you for posting the audio of you relating to comments made which referred to me by blogger Michael, I agree that our judicial system in our country is where this matter, in particular my factual comments as I believe them to be should be tested. Ms Gillard well knows that she has that right open to her to vindicate her assertion that "I have done nothing wrong" or "I was young and naive". To Maggie 1954, Maggie you have precisely and accurately stated my position. Thank you. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL, STAY SAFE AND WE WILL TALK AGAI NEXT YEAR. ( I cant wait, true) Bob Kernohan


Bob Kernohan has a great comment on PICKERING FACEBOOK but what I find really really disturbing is that at least three people are claiming that something has happened, and their ability to 'share' has possibly been disabled or something?


That Michael has come up with a few on the face of it challenging questions in recent weeks.His earlier ones prompted some navel gazing but to arrive at the point That Michael comes direct to all courtesy of the Dept of Crime Minister and Cochroaches in the cabinet.

Harry Won A Bagel

This is the thing. Those that advocate for the PM seem to spend an inordinate amount if time trying to avoid having these allegations even aired let alone tested in court. My understanding of our society is that if I think one of our laws has been broken I go and see the police, it is investigated and if my suspicions have foundation it is tested in court and I am cross examined on my allegations. If I made them up or lied then I am for the high jump. The frustrating thing for those of us who believe our PM has been complicit in a major crime is that no one appears to want to test the allegations. When allegations this serious are made even her supporters should be keen to see them tested.

I have hope the Victorian Police investigation may bring some light but I am not as confident of their integrity as our host. They've had 17 years so far and produced nada.


Thank you Michael (not the blogger). I read that Michael's comment and pondered over it. First, I picked up on his spelling Bob's surname incorrectly, is that a deliberate little twist? or he just didnt know, or maybe the rest of us are wrong. Maybe I'm simply a dumb blonde, but I thought that we all want answers, the matter to be tested in a court of law, open it up, clear the air. Bob would be the first person to want this whole thing to be tested in the courts. Happy New Year, have a glass or three, will think of you all.

Doubtful John

Sent this email to Bill Shorten today,

"I just need to know whether you say Bob Kernoghan is a liar. I would appreciate your advice on this. My name, address and telephone number are included and I would expect your reply. (I bet I don't get one!!!)"


A once Attorney General of the far flung Peoples Republic of Australia Felix decided in his infinite wisdom that the chosen ones should rule no matter what universal adult suffrage might in future decide. To-wit, judiciary were duly appointed to ensure the laws of said Peoples Republic be interpreted in accordance with sacred socialist dogma.
And so it remains today my son.....

An Aussie Plebeian

Maggie1954 writes: "BTW Michael is a terrible commenter, he seems to deliberately twists facts to suit his particular agenda."

I suspect 'Michael' is a Labor operative, sent here to sow seeds of doubt. My advice is to take anything he says with a truckload of salt.

Allan Cox

Smithy, you have the utmost patience of anyone I know, real dignity, mate.

Now, please Michael 2, the game is in your court, so to speak, give us your favour by concurring with Smithy's observation that you are now waiting for JEG and co to test their mettle in a court of law where, undoubtedly, Bob's sworn statements, under oath, can be determined the truth of the matter, or in falsity, he would be liable for very severe consequences.

Cheryl W.

Michael, you're on the red - I'm on the bubbles - it's New Year's Eve - I wish you (and yours) well for 2013 - WE NEED YOU. God bless you.

Doubtful John

Right now you should sod the lot of us and dance with that beautiful wife of yours.

seeker of truth

Michael the blogger is a sh#t stirrer. He wants to take the Mickey out of serious debate on government in Australia under Gillard, but we can accommodate him.

Me thinks his other nom de plume is Julian Goebbels.

You're sprung.

Aaron Macleod

Michael's right - Gillard's not put up any evidence in her defence and the only thing she's done is say it's all a sleaze and smear campaign. Julia, if you're so innocent then come out with some evidence to clear your name.

Don Osborne

Don't hold your breath that Gillard's part in those frauds will ever be tested in court. She is far too cunning for that and so many in her pocket - including the judiciary.

Face the Consequences

Michael, Bob, Ralph and Harry - I hope you and yours have a great New Years Eve and a great 2013.
I also hope that what ought to happen will happen!


Thanks, everyone and sorry about the bad spelling. Working from iPad somewhere in Asia wherever I can find a wifi hot spot, so things are often rushed. I think my criticism was not of Bob but the reaction of most people here - if it's anti Gillard anti labor or anti unions it must be true. I used to think like hat, it was how my family naturally thought, so it was easy and natural.


Happy New Year Michael.
Thank you for your amazing efforts throughout 2012 to keep us all informed and up to date with the unfolding events and for the interesting, entertaining and thought provoking articles you provide.
You are a legend.
All the very best for 2013 to you and your family and to all fellow bloggers out there in the blogisphere.
Cheers to you all.


Michael, Whatever it is that you are drinking...I want some!

Surely your cup of goodwill runneth over and you gave Michael2 a huge benefit of the doubt on his sarcastic comments.

Here's Looking forward to a very interesting year and the good news is now we can finally say this is the year that Gillard will go. (Kicking an Screaming I suspect)

As to the Affidavit from Bob K, there is no reason in the world why his affidavit should not be tested in court...I can hear him saying now..."Bring it On", after all the facts are not really in dispute..the dispute really concerns what Gillard knew, not what she did.


Sorry ..one last comment. Well worth reading! A piece from BKernohan this morning.



Michael and Katarina, Happy 2013, The Year.

Searching for how to subscribe(unsuccessfully) I came across your interview with Crikey, great reading.

"Do I feel "tainted", Smith wants to know, by venturing into "misogynist grubby nut-job headquarters"

PAY PAL details please,

What a slogan, I would like to renew my membership for 2013 to the tainted, grubby nut-job club.

Tinaroo john

Michael, interesting to note in the Australian Bob Hawke wants to get rid of the State Govts
We would have to wonder what the real reasons would be,or would we.
To myself it is one big step to communism and that would certainly put a stop to free speech and our way of life as we know it.
Cunning bastards aren't they using Hawkie but they forget he's no longer cock of the walk and now like a lot of us he's just a feather duster


Bob Kernohan's affidavit – in fact the three that he has claimed to have made – should be released to the media and therefore the public.

Not willy nilly but at a presser held in from of the Australian Parliament in February on the first sitting day for 2013 (11th.).

AND all the bloggers like Bolt, Smith, Pickering, Dowling, Ackerman etc should have a plan for that day to unleash a triade as they see fit!


A very interesting comment was made by Bob K in his note thanking Larry Pickering for his support:

"I know that you falsified documents relating to the allocation of some $600,000 in government grants, from WA taxpayers into a secret bank account that you illegally set up for Wilson."


If this be so, how can Gillard explain setting up the bank account? It would be critical to compare the date it was opened to the date of registration of the AWU-WRA. If opened before registration the bank would have a fair bit to explain.

Add that the to her evil acts in Boulder and the syphoning of funds to Melbourne for Wilson and her own benefit and she would be done for; simply and neatly.


Swan on ABC radio's PM, March 5:

"I WAS really disturbed, and it made my stomach churn, when I read Mr Palmer saying that his only responsibility was to his shareholders and to his workers and he had no public responsibility whatsoever. What I say about people like Mr Palmer is they don't get rich on their own."

This goes to the core of what I despise about Wayne Swan, the ALP and the union movement. There is this assumption that as a worker you have a right to profit share whilst having put up none of your own capital & risked nothing other than your hourly fee. I philosophically object to an employee taking a secure weekly wage but still expecting to get something for nothing. That extends to the guaranteed job for life mentality the unions are currently spruiking. I am no fan of Titanic Clive, but I reckon he does bucket loads more for Australia than Waynie Poo.

Australians have become soft. This does not serve the greater good.


I didn't explain myself adequately last post. What I was getting at is the something for nothing mentality. The we deserve our fair share mentality. The union mentality.

Clive Palmer motivates his staff by offering incentives, I do too. I hire people as contractors and pay them well above the going rate. But be darned if I am going to risk everything just to give to people that don't contribute more than the bare minimum. The philosophy of a super profits tax of any nature is against the Australian way. If you take a risk (mining is a risky business) and you win you get slugged. The ALP has no idea how this stops entrepreneurs. The naive idea in the original mining tax proposal that banks would lend on govt credits was absurd, anyone who has experience with commercial lenders would know this, wombat saviours don't listen to people who live in the real world.

Yesterday I spent the day with a friend who owns a Geology consulting business, exploration, native title negotiations etc, 25 yrs in industry. The number one reason most exploration stopped 2 years ago and staff retrenched in mining in Qld in 2012 was ALP federal govt. Exploration is the first in line, canary in coal mine. They consult for major miners, they have specifically been told by most of their clients that they will only start exploration again after a win by the Libs at the election.



I came across a useful analysis of corruption emanating from Transparency International that enables us to crystallise the modus operandi of the ALP-AWU alliance they seem to tick all the boxes. It is perfectly obvious that the nation is being “stolen.”

This extract sets the scene, however the rest of the short chapter makes for the most disturbing reading. I simply do not see how our politicians can now even remotely pretend that the integrity of government in Australia is not under unheard of threat. Look to the AWU-WRA and all the other scandals at all levels of government from the national and the NBN, Pink Batts, Securency, the Obeids in NSW, down to the local councils such as Brimbank in Victoria. The common thread is the ALP Right.

“A very different survey of the experience of Transparency International chapters, in 1995, suggested that corruption in the public sector takes much the same form and affects the same areas whether one is dealing with a developed country or a developing one. The areas of government activity most vulnerable to corruption were –

• public procurement;
• rezoning of land;
• revenue collection;
• government appointments; and
• local government.

The methodologies, too, were remarkably similar, including -

• cronyism, connections, family members and relatives;
• political corruption through donations to political campaigns, etc.;
• kickbacks on government contracts (and subcontracting consultancies); and
• fraud of all kinds.”

Paste to address bar:



For emphasis I would add to the above:

• control and manipulate the mainstream media;
• establish alliances with capital providers (union super funds, equity capital) and contractors to develop public-private partnerships where the taxpayer assumes the risk;
• control and manipulate regulatory agencies through appointments.

What I am getting at is not rocket science to explain. It is how the seriousness of the situation is explained to the community in a form that will provoke alarm and change, particularly through the ballot box.

As other posters have hinted at (often in despair) the Coalition needs to re-affirm its unshakeable will to have a far-reaching Commission of Inquiry and press upon the electorate that corruption is crippling the economy. There is an abundance of examples. Throw into the mix the low level of administrative skills within Cabinet and Caucus, their amateurism, bungling and plain stupidity, then the election can be fought on the holy trinity of the economy, corruption and incompetence.

What a heaven sent opportunity for the Opposition to show real leadership!

As an aside I would have a large poster of Bill Ludwig with smaller inserts of Shorten and Howes (sunglasses aloft) to graphically highlight Alan RM Jones’ statement that: “Who controls the AWU controls the Labor government and The Lodge.”

Very neat and tidy?


Michael (the blogger) something tells me that you are female?


And isn't a court case exactly what we are crying out for here ? What's your problem Michael?


@Winston | Tuesday, 01 January 2013 at 09:47 AM

Thank you! It is exactly what I and others have been saying about the AWU-WRA and Gillard/Wilson just being the tip of the iceberg. This corruptions runs broad and deep.

To chip around the edges will never address the core problem. From time to time some of the minnows may be caught or cut adrift by the big crooks.

What is needed is a strategy, resources, integrity, courage, skills and commitment to root out the crooks and bring them to account.


Posted by: BBPD | Tuesday, 01 January 2013 at 09:03 AM | Swan on ABC radio's PM, March 5:

"[ ... ] What I say about people like Mr Palmer is they don't get rich on their own."

Sounds like Swannie is lifting the famous Obama quote: "If you’re successful, you didn’t get there on your own,” Obama said. “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that."

... and the response here is equally applicable to Swannie: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/you-didnt-build-that/

Liz of Vic

Michael, I am not sure about the Michael you are talking about, I have some doubts.
I have no doubt about the fact, that the allegations
Bob Kernohan has put in writing with the police, is
a document which needs testing in court. If Julia was not guilty she would be there with bells on!
Julia will do anything to prevent this coming to court. Look at the evidence we have of that, Craig Thomson, Williamson, and the worst one the Ashby case, judged by a judge, I have no faith in, no matter what you said Michael. That Ashby case should have been handled in court.
What about the Journalist, Tony Abbott, Gina Rinehart Mal Brough being accused in Parliament by Roxon, Albanese, Swan, Julia.
None of them being called to account, it is a shocker.
Of course Bob Kernohan should be heard in court!
What is happening with Ralph Blewitt's statement to the Police?
How long do we have to wait?
That is what I want from the Opposition - a Royal Commission into the corruption of the Unions, The Government and the Judiciary.


Surely an affidavit is really a sworn declaration which means just this


this is then contested in law, and decisions made on more than a whimsical accusation...

Its a tool of the law, not a decision!

I read this 'Michael's opinion as more Labor Spin and excuses for Julia's behavior which is quite consistent in her performance of her private and professional careers.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)