Here's Ian Cambridge's letter to then Industrial Relations Minister Laurie Brereton, calling for a Royal Commission into his own union.  He did not then know of the AWU Workplace Reform Association Inc at this time.   I've posted this letter previously here and that original post includes the explanation for the reference to Bob Kernohan in Ian's letter.

And here is the response from the Victoria Branch then secretary Bob Smith, the "if Cambridge is not stopped, we're all history" letter.  I've previously posted this extract from Victoria's parliamentary Hansard here.

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.

Finally here's Bill Shorten's answer in 1998 as to how to allegations of wrongdoing against unionists should be sorted out.

"we'll do it the union way, behind closed doors".

Quadrant Magazine Law January 2003 - Volume XLVII Number 1-2

Judicial Activism and the Death of the Rule of Law

Dyson Heydon[1]

I AM EXTREMELY HONOURED to have been invited to address this Quadrant dinner. I regard the institution as a vernal island which one can periodically visit as an escape from the great polluted oceans of cant washing around it.

THE RULE OF LAW

ON FEBRUARY 19, 1941, George Orwell published his celebrated pamphlet The Lion and the Unicorn. In analysing the superiority of English life to that of Axis and communist Europe, he said:

The gentleness of English civilisation is mixed up with barbarities and anachronisms. Our criminal law is as out of date as the muskets in the Tower. Over against the Nazi Storm Trooper you have got to set that typically English figure, the hanging judge, some gouty old bully with his mind rooted in the 19th century, handing out savage sentences. …People will accept them (and Dartmoor, and Borstal) almost as they accept the weather. They are part of “the law” which is assumed to be unalterable.

Here one comes upon an all-important English trait: the respect for institutionalism and legality, the belief in “the law” as something above the State and above the individual, something which is cruel and stupid, of course, but at any rate incorruptible …

The totalitarian idea that there is no such thing as law, there is only power, has never taken root …

The hanging judge, that evil old man in scarlet robe and horse hair wig, whom nothing short of dynamite will ever teach what century he is living in, but who will at any rate interpret the law according to the books and will in no circumstances take a money bribe, is one of the symbolic figures of England. He is a symbol of the strange mixture of reality and illusion, democracy and privilege, humbug and decency, the subtle network of compromises, by which the nation keeps itself in its familiar shape.

Those observations of the Old Etonian ex-policeman and socialist correspond with a deep tradition of the common law. In the great case of Entick v Carrington (1765) the Court of Common Pleas set aside warrants purportedly justifying a forceful seizure of the plaintiff’s papers. Lord Camden CJ gave instructions that the notes from which he gave his decision should be burned, but by accident they were preserved. According to them, he said, in rejecting an argument that even if the warrants were otherwise unlawful, they were justified on the ground that they were employed to seize documents which were seditious libels:

If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it is not to be found there, it is not law … [With] respect to the argument of state necessity, or a distinction that has been aimed at between state offences and others, the common law does not understand that kind of reasoning, nor do our books take notice of any such distinctions.

Labor wasn't so keen in October, 2012

Here is the report that started the Victoria Police investigation.

Hedley Thomas in The Australian today

...those media commentators and union figures who want to see the AWU slush fund scandal swept under the carpet because it goes back two decades are misguided. In the events at the AWU in the 1990s, Australia’s former prime minister was a key player. A man who was being groomed to be Australia’s most powerful unionist, Bruce Wilson, was another key player. The union’s national head at the time, Ian Cambridge, was appalled and called for a royal commission into the matters in 1996. An exhaustive investigation by Heydon’s probe now would be completely justified and in the public interest.

On Wilson's appeal to the Supreme Court on Client Privilege

.....the police want to go forward only when they have all their ducks in a row. They suspect the documents — which Victoria’s Chief Magistrate, Peter Lauritsen, has inspected and described in a ruling as having reasonable grounds to conclude they had been prepared “in furtherance of the commission of a fraud or an offence” -- are going to be a powerful part of their case. We know, thanks to Lauritsen’s access to police affidavits, they are “investigating the commission of four types of offence in relation to Wilson and others — obtaining property by deception; receiving secret commissions; making and using false documents; and conspiracy to cheat and defraud”.

Now here is the rub: police are expected to postpone laying charges until Wilson’s bid to keep the documents secret has been exhausted. And as the legal battle has been escalated to Victoria’s Supreme Court, it will not be resolved until June at the earliest.

What this means for the Labor Party, Gillard (who has always asserted she did not know the slush fund would be used in any wrongdoing), Bill Shorten and other potential witnesses is nothing stands in the way of the new royal commission investigating the AWU slush-fund scandal.

There are no sub judice issues because nobody has been charged over the slush fund. Former High Court judge Dyson Heydon can fulfil Tony Abbott’s pledge to run a judicial inquiry into a scandal journalists, and large media organisations, have been threatened and bullied for reporting. 

Wilson’s strategy has given the commission an opening to use its powers and rules of evidence. Witnesses can be compelled to give evidence under oath.

It's all in the timing!

SARAH FERGUSON: The AWU is named specifically. Is it - do you expect former Prime Minister Julia Gillard to be called to give evidence under oath about the so-called slush fund that she set up with the AWU?

BILL SHORTEN: I have no idea. 

 Royal Commission Terms of Reference

1.      The governance arrangements of any separate entities established by registered employee associations or their officers, purportedly for industrial purposes or for the welfare of their members, with particular regard to:

(a)                  the financial management of such entities;

(b)                 the adequacy of existing laws as they relate to such entities with respect to:

(i)                 the integrity of financial management; and

(ii)               the accountability of officers of registered employee associations to their members in respect of the use of funds and other assets in relation to such entities;

(c)         Whether such entities are used, or have been used for any form of unlawful purpose;

(d)                 the use of funds solicited in the name of any such entities, for the purpose of furthering the interests of:

(i)                 a registered employee association;

(ii)               officers of a registered employee association;

(iii)             members of a registered employee association; or

(iv)             any other person, association or organisation.

2.      Without limiting the matters in paragraph 1, alleged activities relating to the establishment or operation of any such entities as they relate to the various registered branches of the following employee associations:

(a)    the Australian Workers Union;

8.      The participation of any persons, associations or organisations other than registered employee associations or their officers in conduct of the type described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.

Transcript

SARAH FERGUSON, PRESENTER: To discuss the Toyota decision and the announcement of the Royal commission into union corruption, I'm joined now from our Canberra studio by the Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten.

Bill Shorten, thank you for joining us.

BILL SHORTEN, OPPOSITION LEADER: Good evening, Sarah.

SARAH FERGUSON: We'll come to the Toyota decision in a moment, Mr Shorten, but first today's announcement of the Royal commission. Could union corruption cost you your chance of becoming Prime Minister?

BILL SHORTEN: What matters in Australia is not political stunts, what matters is making sure that we've got jobs being created and jobs being kept. I mean, let's be very clear though about what I think about union corruption: there is no place in our society for someone who's a union representative taking bribes or being corrupt, just as there's no place in our society for employers or anyone else who engages in criminal behaviour. That's why the Opposition's proposed a much more straightforward proposition to some of the challenges we've seen, particularly in the building and construction sector: give our police the resources they need to catch the crooks and keep the politics out of this.

SARAH FERGUSON: You say that's more straightforward, Mr Shorten, but the problem with the police, as they say themselves, is that they can't compel people to give testimony, and that's been a problem with the unions, that people haven't come forward to make those kind of witness statements that police need.

BILL SHORTEN: But if you know the answer to the problem, which is the way evidence is given and strengthening the law, then why do we need to have a $100 million Royal commission to tell people - the police - what they already know?

SARAH FERGUSON: Well precisely because a Royal commission can compel people to give evidence in a way the police can't.

BILL SHORTEN: But only the police can prosecute someone; a Royal commission can't. Let's be really straight with this: for people at home, they're saying, "What's this all about?" There have been some union people who have been found to have been alleged to have done the wrong thing. That's reprehensible. That makes me sick because I know that most people who are in unions do the right thing every time. So there's got to be no acceptance of any culture of criminality. But what I also know is that if you're going to tackle this criminal problem, you don't do it through a political stunt. Our police need resources. The police know where the crooks are. Their challenge is ...

SARAH FERGUSON: You say - Bill Shorten, you say this is a political stunt, but we know that the allegations of criminality, particularly in the CFMEU, were brought to the union's attention in the course of last year and no action was taken. Isn't that precisely the reason why we need this kind of Royal commission?

BILL SHORTEN: Well I think it was the media who uncovered that particular problem, not a Royal commission. I make the observation that we had the Cole Royal Commission into the building industry 12 years ago. Now, these problems which are reported to exist now may well have existed then, but the Royal commission didn't get anywhere.

SARAH FERGUSON: But the Royal commission did lead to the setting up of the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which your government disbanded. Had you not done so, then perhaps this corruption wouldn't have flourished, you wouldn't be in the situation you're in now.

BILL SHORTEN: Well, first of all, the Australian Building - or the ABCC, the body you're referring to, could only ever chase industrial matters, they couldn't deal with criminal matters. If the problem we're trying to solve here - and it's one - a goal which I share and Labor shares - is tackling crime, then you don't create industrial bodies or you don't create political committees. What you do is you get the police, the support they need, that's why we've proposed setting up an AFP, an Australian Federal Police taskforce, working with all the police agencies. We have the Australian Crime Commission, which already has the powers of a Royal commission. The tools are there, Sarah. What I don't understand ...

SARAH FERGUSON: Well why not have that police taskforce running alongside a Royal commission, as George Brandis acknowledged was possible yesterday?

BILL SHORTEN: Well we certainly hope that the Government takes up our suggestion. My point is that the Australian Crime Commission already exists. It liaises with 13 or 14 police forces throughout Australia. My question is: why spend $100 million to tell the police what they already know. They know the tools they need. I'd rather hear from the police about the extra resources they need. I mean, $100 million of taxpayers' money to have a political ...

SARAH FERGUSON: I think the Attorney-General disputes that $100 million. Let me just ask you about one of the terms of reference, as was announced today.

BILL SHORTEN: Sure.

SARAH FERGUSON: The AWU is named specifically. Is it - do you expect former Prime Minister Julia Gillard to be called to give evidence under oath about the so-called slush fund that she set up with the AWU?

BILL SHORTEN: I have no idea. I know this matter is being rigorously investigated by the police. You have to ask yourself why the Abbott Government wants to go over matters which the police are already dealing with. Also, when we deal with this, we've got to be really straight, I think, for people. There is an issue, I think, to challenge in the building and construction sector with reports of outlaw motorcycle gangs. And no-one's above the law - not a union rep', not an employer.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3941885.htm

Earlier today Hedley Thomas brought us the news that Julia Gillard was being considered for appointment as the Chairman of the Global Partnership for Education.

The entity is responsible for a multi-billion dollar fund of money donated by countries like Australia.

It is a unit of the World Bank with a 19 person Board of Directors, each representing the interests of a particular constituency.  In that sense the Directors are not fiduciaries, rather each brings to the table the interests of his or her constituency.

Australia has a $300M financial interest in this organisation.  For that contribution, we have a shared directorship with Spain (as Donor Two director), that is one director represents the combined Spanish/Australian "interest".   Genius.   The Board (committee is more accurate) must by its nature be riven and subject to the loudest voice wins protocol.

The entity was assessed by Australia's DFAT and its report is here.   The entity scored "Weak" for the effectiveness of its aid.   That should be no surprise.   It doesn't have a board of fiduciaries, rather it's a committee of beneficiaries who want more money and donors who have to account for where it's spent.   Good luck.

Our report said:

GPE was established as a ‘global compact’ between low income countries and donor partners. This compact includes that donors harmonise their aid delivery to the sector, help mobilise resources and make them more predictable, while beneficiaries need to demonstrate their commitment through adequate and sustainable domestic financing for education.

The role of the Chairman is as a fiduciary responsible for the entity.   The Chairmanship is separate from the directors of the Board/Committee.   The Chairman's appointment is not a rotational selection from directors, rather the appointment seems to be made in its own right.

I've included the Chairman's job description at the end of this piece.

Hedley Thomas reports

It is understood Ms Gillard has confirmed her availability and that the Abbott government will not object. However, the drive to lower costs and expenditures is expected to determine whether Australia should continue to make significant contributions.

The Abbott Government is duty-bound to object.   It must object.   It has no choice, it has no latitude, no room for a judgement call or the granting of some benefit arising from doubts about Ms Gillard's integrity.   There is no doubt as to her suitability to act in a role with responsibility for stewardship over some billions of dollars of other people's money.   She carries a finding of having acted (as a lawyer) in the furtherance of fraud.   She cannot escape it, it is simply a fact of her life.   And her troubles extend beyond that.

Julia Eileen GILLARD is a suspect currently under investigation for offences of Fraud, Conspiracy to Cheat and Defraud and Making and Using False Instruments (forgery).   She further faces an investigation by the Legal Services Board of Victoria for certain of her conduct as a lawyer in the 1990s.

Tony Abbott is no doubt well advised about the contemporary zeitgeist and its received wisdom which holds that Ms Gillard is somehow cocooned from and free of guilty connections with her actions as a lawyer in The AWU Scandal.   That notion is pure wishful thinking on Gillard's part.   For others, like Mr Abbott whose first duty is to the nation, not to his "niceness" ranking, the zeitgeist could better be described as bullshit.   Irrelevant, misleading bullshit and unworthy of being considered as a legitimate factor in an assessment of what's right for Australia.

The Chief Magistrate of Victoria has ruled on the matter of Gillard's involvement in The AWU Scandal.   Every piece of legal advice, every document created, every bit of work done by Ms Gillard in the AWU WRA Inc was done in the furtherance of fraud.   The standard of proof used in the Chief Magistrate's deliberations was lower than the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold for the proof of criminal conduct, and his findings were made "on the papers" and ex-parte so far as Ms Gillard's right to a defence were concerned - but the Chief Magistrate's assessment of her conduct as a lawyer was scathing and it is a finding of law and fact.

Gillard is being actively investigated for fraud by a dedicated group of detectives from Victoria Police's Major Fraud Squad.   She is named as a person of interest in a Search Warrant issued by the Magistrates Court and executed by police on her former law offices.  I am in the unique position of being the complainant in the matter after lodging an official complaint to Victoria Police naming her and describing her conduct which I say was criminal and which is being investigated by police.   I am advised as to the progress of my complaint.   She is a suspect.   She is being actively investigated for fraud.

Tony Abbott and his advisers might think that it would be churlish, or it would make Tony look mean-spirited to knock back Gillard in the Global Partnership Role.   Her PR team, aided by a complicit and barracking media has been resolute in its risible claim that she did nothing wrong.   But that cover-all statement is untrue and at odds with the Chief Magistrate's findings.  She did things to further her de-facto's frauds.  She is being investigated by Victoria Police for serious fraud offences.   By failing to speak up and to object to her appointment in the World Bank Education chairmanship, the Abbott Government is putting its "nice guy" reputational interests firsts and Australia's interests second.

Julia Gillard is an offender, a named and known reputed thief who has a finding that she "furthered a fraud" against her.   The ruling sets out the potential charges (conspiracy to defraud, fraud and making and using false instruments) in which she is a suspect in the current investigation by Victoria Police.

Tony, put Australia first. Knock her back.   Send a message that we don't do business with crooks any more.

Statement from Kathy Jackson, HSU National Secretary

HSU National Secretary, Kathy Jackson, today welcomed the federal government’s announcement of a royal commission on union corruption, including in the HSU.

Ms Jackson said that she had been calling for a royal commission into her own union since the report of an inquiry by Mr Ian Temby QC into the affairs of HSU East was released.

“I believe corruption in the HSU goes much deeper than Michael Williamson and Craig Thomson,” she says..

“There are many senior HSU officials, still running the union, that have, at the very least, enabled or ignored evidence of corruption.

“Members of the HSU deserve to know who they are."

Ms Jackson said that she also was happy, as she understand it, that the Commission’s terms of reference will allow it to look at slush funds.

“Large, secret slush funds in unions is a major problem in undermining’ democratic processes.  Labor powerbrokers use these funds to manipulate union elections as part of ALP internal power-plays.

“Union members and the public have a right to know what’s been going on here”.

Ms Jackson slammed the response of the ACTU, HSU officials and the federal opposition who have opposed the Royal Commission.

“The line that we need only greater resources for the police is a mere ruse.

“The police can only investigate criminal matters and can only bring charges when there’s proof of crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

“But the Commission will be able to make recommendations for regulatory or legislative change and can expose conduct that, if not criminal, is nevertheless politically corrupt in the wider sense and against the interests of union members and the public.

Ms Jackson said that public statement by HSU NSW Branch Secretary, Gerard Hayes, that he had put in place all the necessary reforms were “nauseating”;

“Hayes was the right-hand man of Williamson and was elected only with $500,000 election funds of unknown origin.  No wonder he’s now saying `move along, nothing to see here'.  I can see why he doesn’t want a Royal Commission”.

Kathy Jackson

And finally, where would we be without the ABC!   After putting in the hard yards for 2 whole weeks, the ABC is claiming credit for the Royal Commission.

Bless!

Attorney-General George Brandis yesterday confirmed that the Government will establish a royal commission into corruption in the union movement, after a fortnight in which the ABC and Fairfax Media have revealed widespread bribery and other wrongdoing in the construction industry.

On Sundays, MichaelSmithNews usually delivers about 35,000 pageviews to our readers.

That figure might double when there's a development in The AWU Scandal.   Yesterday, as the Royal Commission into union corruption was announced, I'd have expected to see at least 70,000 pageviews.

But only 6,000 pageviews made their way to our readers.   Nothing changed on my website.   You did nothing differently in what you typed in.  It was a 3rd party, Google Inc, that blocked our readers from connecting with this site - and judging on the email complaints, there were a lot of users that Google interfered with.   But Google didn't just block our readers, it substituted a scary, very effective, very defamatory and completely false message about me and our site instead of what I'd posted and what you asked to see.

Google's dominance and market power online is mind-boggling.   If you use the Chrome browser, Google is there behind it.   Google dominates online search, maps, it's very strong in images, it owns YouTube the video platform and Google+ is aimed squarely at the 1 billion+ users on Facebook.   Google's analytics and webmaster platforms dominate the online world in matching customers with sellers who play the Google SEO (search engine optimisation) game - and Telstra has just announced a deal with Google to bring Google's search and content capabilities to the Australian television market.

But it's in pure advertising that Google's global dominance is breathtaking.   Google is reputed to bank about 44% of all global online advertising dollars spent.  Here is a link to Google's latest quarterly financial reports - some highlights:

Revenues and other information - On a consolidated basis, Google Inc. revenues for the quarter ended December 31, 2013 were $16.86 billion, an increase of 17% compared to the fourth quarter of 2012.

Google Segment Revenues - Google segment revenues were $15.72 billion, or 93% of consolidated revenues, in the fourth quarter of 2013, representing a 22% increase over fourth quarter 2012 Google segment revenues of $12.91 billion.

• Google Sites Revenues - Google-owned sites generated segment revenues of $10.55 billion, or 67% of total Google segment revenues, in the fourth quarter of 2013. This represents a 22% increase over fourth quarter 2012 Google sites segment revenues of $8.64 billion.
• Google Network Revenues - Google's partner sites generated segment revenues of $3.52 billion, or 23% of total Google segment revenues, in the fourth quarter of 2013. This represents a 3% increase over fourth quarter 2012 Google network segment revenues of $3.44 billion.
• Other Google Revenues - Other revenues from the Google segment were $1.65 billion, or 10% of total Google segment revenues, in the fourth quarter of 2013. This represents a 99% increase over fourth quarter 2012 other Google segment revenues of $829 million.

If it travels online, chances are Google is clipping the ticket.   Because Google has such power over online activity and because of the potential for that power to be abused, I'd expect Google to operate as a model corporate citizen.   I'd have thought the greatest risk to the company's growth trajectory is regulatory oversight and anti-trust actions with forced demergers and sell-offs of business units as a result of coming to the attention of regulators.

Well based on my one experience with the company - it's bound to attract precisely that sort of scrutiny and it deserves it.

About 6AM Sunday morning, Google moved to prevent users of the Chrome browser from connecting with www.michaelsmithnews.com.   It listed our website as an "Attack Page" saying, "attack pages try to instal programs that steal private information or use your computer to attack others".

Google did not contact me.   The first I heard was from our readers.   Other web security services, taking their lead from Google, also black-listed the site.

As the day wore on, the notification put out by Google got scarier.   It featured a graphic of a masked bandit with a sack full of stolen data.  

The headline was

Danger!   Malware Ahead!

Google Chrome has blocked access to this page michaelsmithnews.com

Content from michaelsmithnews.typepad.com, a known malware distributor, has been inserted into this webpage.  Visiting this page is very likely to infect your computer with malware.

Malware is malicious software that causes identity theft, financial loss and permanent file deletion.

I was in a state of shock.   Almost 2 years of work in this website, assiduous fact-checking and opening up every assertion to scrutiny and critique - and one Sunday morning I discovered that Google had grounds to block our site.   Worse still, it referred to me by name and my website as a "known malware distributor".

But even on Sunday morning it didn't quite ring true.  The front message with the masked bandit graphic was scary, but click on the "advanced" tab and you'd find our site was listed as "suspicious", based on one suspicious activity over the past 90 days.   Not confirmed as a malware distributor, rather the website was suspected of involvement in one suspicious activity.

The details page included this data;  

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?

Over the past 90 days, michaelsmithnews.typepad.com did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.

Has this site hosted malware?

No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days

As the day wore on I engaged a number of people to help get to the bottom of the troubles.   There was no alternative to installing Google's analytics program and Google's webmaster software into my website.

Only after I'd included some Google computer code in my website to allow Google to see what was going on - in my property - did Google send me a file that included the "suspicious" pieces of software on my website.

I've had two sources of advertising on this website - Google Ads and Mad Ads, or www.madadsmedia.com

The Google spreadsheet listed only one line of computer code as the reason it blocked us.   Its competitor MadAds.

And in order for me to have the Google "machine" review its arbitrary decision to black-list our site, I had to show Google what I'd done to remedy the "problem".   That meant addressing the "issue" put forward by Google, or getting rid of MadAds.

So, out went Google's competitor MadAds and out went Google's own ad software from the site as well.   By late last night we had complied with everything Google had asked for - and I progressed with the request for a review.   Our website was then operating as a stock-standard typepad blog - like millions of others hosted by typepad around the world.

By early this morning we had passed the test and Google sent me this message:

Security Issues

We haven't detected any security issues on your site. If you need more information on security issues related to your site, please review our resources for hacked sites.

End of problem?   No way.  As at 4PM today Google is still sending this screen message to users of the Google Chrome browser who type in www.michaelsmithnews.com

I am not a malware distributor, let alone a "known malware distributor".    Google's own systems tell it that, yet it continues to carelessly publish this horribly damaging and false statement about me and this site.   Google has published that message to tens of thousands of page viewers now and it continues to publish it.

Google is restraining my ability to trade with you.   It holds the cards and it's played them in an unconscionable way, no correspondence, no warning, no opportunity to correct what it viewed as a problem.   Just the word of one company and bang - your shop is shut down.   And it will stay that way until you install that company's products and services, install their computer code into your property and adopt their preferences for your own website.

Google's claims about my website are false.   They are misleading and deceptive and they certainly fall within the coverage of the Trade Practices legislation in Australia.   Google needs to watch itself with 3rd line forcing too - where you can have online ads as long as they're Google, and the diagnostics is Google and the webmaster package is Google.   And Google can block you if you have other ads that it doesn't like, and then to get unblocked the only way is with Google diagnostic software.

Got the idea?   Think Coles and Woollies have a case to answer?

There comes a time when an innovative company with a great can-do and customer-centric culture loses the things that made it great.   When it starts to do what it likes because it can.  Too much money, margins too high, cash flow that seems endless.   The warning bells should be ringing loudly at Google, it's showing all the pride and arrogance that precede a major fall.

Google's management in Australia should be right on the front foot on this issue, adopting the model corporate citizen rule.   The consequences of its actions are very serious and the company should treat the issues accordingly.  An apology would be a nice start.

Yesterday I was involved in some exchanges of data with the Google organisation about our website.

I've installed the latest Google analytic and webmaster software onto the site, as well as the typepad.com anti virus and spyware/malware protections.

Last night I "opened the kimono" for Google and invited it to conduct an audit of the site, in fact we followed all of these steps at Google's behest.

Google wrote back to me this morning with this clean bill of health:

Security Issues

We haven't detected any security issues on your site. If you need more information on security issues related to your site, please review our resources for hacked sites.

I have again asked Google to let me know why its Chrome browser is showing a Malware warning in relation to www.michaelsmithnews.com .   There is no such problem for Google to warn you about. Google's persistence in displaying its incorrect warning amounts, in my view, to a potential unlawful restraint on my trade, it creates damage to my website's good name and the warning is misleading and deceptive for the purposes of the Trade Practices Act and its successor legislation.

The peremptory and unilateral nature of Google's imposition of the malware block/warning is alarming.   I'll let you know how it proposes to make good.