I think the Prime Minister may have overreached yesterday - if so Victoria Police should correct the record
Former ACTU official goes all out to sell "Coalition Objectivity" on broadband over dismal NBN

When the lawyer goes beyond advice and draws documents for the purpose of enabling a client to achieve an objective, it is, I think, almost impossible to contend that the adviser does not aid the commission of any offence which results.

And so said His Honour Mr Justice McHugh in his paper “Jeopardy of lawyers and accountants in acting on commercial transactions” delivered to the Perth Summer School 1988, published in Australian Bar Review, vol 5 No 1 March 1989.

I'd really like that thought to sink in for a moment.

His Honour dealt with the notion of encouragement by practitioners of clients’ unlawful activities.

And now His Honour's last sentence again - the heading to this piece:

"When the lawyer goes beyond advice and draws documents for the purpose of enabling a client to achieve an objective, it is, I think, almost impossible to contend that the adviser does not aid the commission of any offence which results."

AWU WRA applicatoin
To me, giving advice includes things like, "You missed a bit on the window luv", or "Keep coming, keep coming, two feet, one foot, hold it there - sorry."

Writing nine pages of detailed Objects of the Association, including detailed arrangements for financial and bank/cheque accounts, right down to the number of signatories on cheques seems like fitting the description McHugh J gave above, that is drawing documents rather than the innocuous 'I gave advice'.

"when the lawyer goes beyond advice and draws documents for the purpose of enabling a client to achieve an objective it is, I think, almost impossible to contend that the adviser does not aid the commission of any offence which results.".

I listened carefully to the Prime Minister yesterday.   She stated that the AWU-WRA was set up to raise and to hold money to pay for the election of officials in the AWU. Those were her instructions she said.   Set up an entity to raise and to hold funds for the election of certain  AWU officials.

Why don't the rules say members of the association have to be members of  the AWU then?   That's a condition precedent to standing for election to an AWU position, pretty obvious one too.  If that's what the association was set up for.   Wouldn't there be at least a few words about the requirements for candidature for AWU office-holder elections amongst those closely typed 9 pages (drafted from the Socialist Forum).

And just how many elected officials were there in the WA head office?   How many in Ralph and Bruce's group that Gillard took instructions about? Were there more than 5, the minimum number of members to make the association legal?  If there weren't, why would a lawyer advise using this structure? And of those people, how many were demonstrated to be of the same persuasion so far as their electoral platform was concerned?   How many elected officials and AWU members who were declared candidates for election committed to putting their funds into this association, dedicated to workplace reform and safety?

These rules don't talk about things like that.   These rules look nothing like the rules that would apply to an association dedicated to electing AWU officials on safety and workplace reform.

These rules are deceptive as to the association's true purpose.   And it's stupid to accept Gillard's nonsense that she simply provided advice.  She drafted the rules! She went beyond advice to draw documents for the purpose of enabling her lover to achieve an objective.   And the objective he achieved was a manifestly improper, criminal objective.

One more time for Justice McHugh's sakes!

"When the lawyer goes beyond advice and draws documents for the purpose of enabling a client to achieve an objective, it is, I think, almost impossible to contend that the adviser does not aid the commission of any offence which results."

Download _92_04_22---application-for-incorporation---from-ic4

Comments