Good citizens help authorities defeat terrorists. Good corporate citizens do too. Apple is the opposite.
Apple gets the debate it asked for on Court Order to help FBI access terrorist's iPhone - here's my contribution

Letter to the Speaker about the TURC finding on Gillard's false statements that she paid for her renovations herself.

The Honourable Tony Smith MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Parliament House  CANBERRA
 
 
 

Dear Speaker,

 
 
On Tuesday 27 November 2012 then Prime Minister Julia Gillard made the following statement to the House of Representatives:- link to Hansard here.
 
Ms GILLARD: I have answered this clearly and publicly on the public record now since 1995. I paid for the renovations at my home. 
 
Later that day Ms Gillard gave further details to the House:after she was asked whether she could guarantee no AWU slush funds were used for her home renovations. 
 
Ms GILLARD: On the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question, I have answered this on a number of occasions. I answered it as early as 1995, and no amount of yelling from the opposition changes that fact. In 1995 I dealt with allegations about renovations on my property. I dealt with them again in 2001. I dealt with them again in 2006. I dealt with them again in 2007 after the Liberal Party shopped around a dirt file on me. I have dealt with them on multiple occasions over the course of this year. I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: check the transcript from yesterday. I stand by that transcript and what I said about my renovations. I stand by the transcript of my press conference in August. I have dealt with these allegations time and time again. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that and ought to check the now very available public record.
 
The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption conducted an extensive enquiry into Ms Gillard's assertion she "paid for the renovations at (her) home" (AWU Workplace Reform Association Inc, pages 169-189).
 
It found that Bruce Wilson funded the renovations carried out by the builder Athol James at Ms Gillard's Abbotsford house.   it found that the builder's evidence was truthful and correct and that Ms Gillard's evidence that she had funded the payments herself was not.   
 
 Following is an extract from the Royal Commission's report:
 
 

Bruce Wilson funds Athol James

 
  1. Athol James, in his witness statement dated 23 May 2014, gave the following evidence:238

    During the work I would deal with Ms GILLARD in relation to any payment for the completed work. I would give her the invoice. I am pretty certain she said she would get money from Bruce and pay me in the next few days. I am certain she said Bruce was paying for it. I am certain I saw Bruce hand Ms GILLARD a large amount of cash on two occasions. Ms GILLARD said to me that as Bruce brought her the cash she would pay me by cheque. When Bruce handed Ms GILLARD the cash she would write me a cheque. I never was paid in cash and I don’t know what happened with the cash Bruce handed her (emphasis added).
  2. In oral evidence, Athol James described the ‘large amount of cash’ handed over as being on each occasion ‘a wad of notes’.239 He also said in oral evidence that it was ‘quite clear in my mind’ that Julia Gillard told him that ‘Bruce was paying for the job’.240 Athol James was very firm. He adhered to his evidence in cross- examination, stating that one payment was made in the passage way and the other in the lounge room.241 He referred to ‘[a] very substantial amount of money’.242

  3. In cross-examination Athol James insisted that he had a clear recollection of events. Indeed he explained that he had a good memory of the particular job because he regarded the Abbotsford property as having been constructed badly:243 

EXTRACT ENDS
 
The Commission compared Ms Gillard's version of events with Mr James's evidence.  The Commission's report on the matter explains that it had a:
  1.  ......duty to make a finding one way or the other, if possible, on the basis of two bodies of clear but conflicting evidence. 
It discharged that duty in respect of the story created by Ms Gillard   it found against her.   Her story (that she funded the renovations herself) was false as was her statement to the Parliament.
 
Here's a further extract from the Commission's report.

Assessing Julia Gillard’s testimony

174. But, it might be asked, why should Julia Gillard’s denials not be accepted? Why should her generally sound and credible evidence be rejected in this one instance? The best answer to those questions is a blunt one. Julia Gillard had been maintaining ever since 1995, in one way or another, that she had paid for all the repairs to her house. She did so on 11 September 1995 in the interview with Peter Gordon and Geoff Shaw. In that interview she said in a qualified way: ‘I believe all of the work was paid for by me.’287 She did so again in her press conference of 23 August 2012, this time in an unqualified way: ‘I paid for the renovations on my home in St Phillip Street in Abbotsford.’288 She did so once more in her press conference of 26 November 2012: ‘I am confident that I paid for the renovations on my home.’289 She coupled that statement of confidence with the following ringing challenge: ‘If anybody has a piece of evidence that says I knowingly received money to which I was not entitled for my renovations, please feel free to get it out. If anybody’s got it, it’s only been 20 years.’290

175. Athol James did have that piece of evidence. Its existence was unknown in 1995 and during the 2012 press conferences. But it was not he who responded to the challenge. When the Victorian police officers traced him through Julia Gillard’s reference to him in the 11 September 1995 interview and questioned him he provided the piece of evidence which she challenged ‘anybody’ to produce. He did not volunteer it. The detectives found it by their own exertions.

176. That placed her in an unenviable position. When at the 11 September 1995 meeting, she put the matter in terms of belief, not certainty, in the passage referred to above, there was some room left to manoeuvre. On that occasion she also said: ‘I can’t categorically rule out that something at my house didn’t get paid

287 Gillard MFI-1, p 150 (emphasis added). 288 Gillard MFI-1, p 160. See also p 167. 289 Gillard MFI-1, p 178. See also p 181. 290 Gillard MFI-1, p 178.

184

for by the association or something at my house didn’t get paid for by the union.’291 That, too, left room for manoeuvre. But in later statements she said in effect that further consideration in the light of a thorough examination of her documents removed any doubt. One problem with this is that it ignores the real issue. The real issue is not: ‘Did Julia Gillard pay those who worked on her house in full by cheque?’ It is agreed on all hands that she did. The real issue is: ‘What was the source of the money she used to pay them?’ That latter question may well not be capable of answer by simply examining economically phrased documents from tradesmen and comparing them with impressions of what work was done. Her evidence to the Commission did confront that latter question. She answered it by saying: ‘All payments made for renovations on my property were from my own money which was either derived from a loan from the bank or my salary.’292 Athol James contradicted that. Julia Gillard’s position at the 11 September 1995 interview was compatible with Athol James’s evidence. But her later positions were not. By adopting those positions she had dug herself into an inflexible trench which she could not manoeuvre away from.

177. Julia Gillard had two available courses, both dangerous. One was to admit that her memory in 2012 was not perfect and that the tentativeness of 1995 had been the correct position. Had she followed that course, she could have said that she did not remember the incidents that Athol James testified to, that she

291 Gillard MFI-1, p 153.
292 Julia Gillard, witness statement 4, 10/9/13, para 26.

185

doubted that they happened, but that she could not absolutely deny them. The other was to deny completely what Athol James said. It is regrettable that matters have come to this. To take the first course would have detrimental aspects: she would have had to backtrack from earlier statements. But to take the second placed her in a direct contest of probative value with Athol James. That is always a perilous position for a witness. He said he remembered certain events. She said, not that she does not remember the events, but that they never happened. He had no interest to serve in saying what he said. He had no advantage to be gained. It was nothing to him who paid for the renovations. He was a reluctant witness. She, on the other hand, had every reason to deny what he said. What he said was fatal to the stand she took at the Prime Minister’s press conferences in 2012. She could either climb down or fight. She chose to fight.  Thus she said:293

Q. You told him on a number of occasions that Mr Wilson was paying for the renovations?

A. That’s completely untrue.

Q. Because Mr Wilson was in fact paying for the renovations - -

A. That’s just not true, Mr Stoljar.

Q. - - that’s right, isn’t it?

A. Just not true.

Q. You also told Mr James that as Bruce brought you cash, you would be in a position to pay his bill?

A. That’s just not true. 293 Julia Gillard, 10/9/14, T:850.23-36.

186

  1. Julia Gillard was in many ways a satisfactory witness. But the manner in which she uttered these words denying what Athol James said seemed to be excessive, forced, and asseverated. There was an element of acting in her demeanour. She delivered those words in a dramatic and angry way, but the delivery fell flat. She protested too much. She chose to fight him. It was a fight in which there could be only one winner. Unfortunately, she lost that fight. Athol James’s testimony is to be accepted over hers. He was a witness of truth. His version of events was correct. 

ENDS
 
Ms Gillard's statements in the Parliament about paying for the renovations were false.   She mislead the House.    The Hansard record remains unaltered.   Many people had their reputations damaged by Ms Gillard in retaliation for speaking out about her lies.   The Hansard records that she spoke about some of those people at the same time as she falsely claimed she paid for the renovations:

Ms GILLARD: There is no amount of screaming that makes this falsehood true. I have answered this clearly and publicly on the public record now since 1995. I paid for the renovations at my home. This is smear, pure and simple. 

Let us see how the opposition has put this smear, pure and simple, together. First, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has spent time with a man who has said he believes he is guilty of fraud and is looking for immunity from that fraud as well as a series of other assertions about his conduct that he himself has made that would make you wonder why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would spend time with such a person. Then the Deputy Leader of the Opposition today has referred to an affidavit from Bob Kernohan. It is a matter of longstanding public record that this affidavit was drawn up by John Pasquarelli of One Nation. So there we have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition meeting with a man who, on his own admission, is guilty of fraud, and there is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition coming into this parliament and relying on the work of One Nation for smear, pure and simple.

 
May I ask that you let me and my readers know what steps the Parliament will take to correct the record?    What will the House do to help restore the reputations of those people Ms Gillard attacked/    What sanctions could the Parliament bring against the former Prime Minister for misleading the House?
 
I propose to treat this note as an open letter and to publish it and any reply I might receive.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Michael Smith

Comments