Dear Ms Gillard,
This is one of my last broadcasts at 2UE before the intervention.
Wednesday 31 August 2011. You chose not to answer my questions.
I refer to the questions I put to you before I was taken off air at 2UE, while I was accredited as a broadcaster and after written receipt of an opinion from a QC I had personally engaged in addition to the external defamation lawyer for 2UE Bruce Burke who cleared my work for broadcast.
You declined to furnish a response to those questions.
I wrote to you several times to put to you certain allegations that led to the creation of the Operation Tendement Task Force.
You declined to respond.
As a result I made this report to the Chief Commissioner of the Victoria Police.
I made a comprehensive editorial about it to my readers and listeners on my website here.
I provided certain assistance to the Tendement Task Force.
I crystallised obligations upon discovering the letter which provides the basis for an alibi in your repudiation of the actual contents of the WA Office of State Corporate Affairs records is a forgery (false instrument).
The apparent fact of that forgery renders the Trade Union Royal Commissioner's report into your conduct unsafe. I will ask that it be set aside.
Should the report stand, the fact of the forgery and your false evidence about it triggers the proviso made in the Commissioner's finding on your conduct that describes sufficient actu reus for offences, with generous allowance of doubt as to your mens rea. He was definitive as to what follows.
The reputations of the persons who genuinely worked at the WA Office of State Corporate Affairs (not the Commission as the forgery refers to it) are affronted by the proposition that the purported offer to do an unlawful act to the benefit of those behind the AWU WRA Inc sham (through the ultra vires offer to incorporate the association upon an un-enforcable promise to right the unlawful incorporation 30 days down the track through an undefined process of a change to its objects to include rule 3A) described in the false instrument you used in the face of Commissioner Heydon AC QC should remain unchallenged on his important report as a representation of their work.
You should be on notice for the receipt of the civil process to remedy that wrong.
That's why I reported the serious indictable offences in the first instance to the entity responsible for indictments on the Federal Offences flowing from what appears to be premeditated use of these false instruments and in the making of false statements, ie your perjury to the face of the Royal Commission directed to enquire into your behaviour
The Commonwealth DPP can pick up and continue an indictment presented by any citizen to a court of competent jurisdiction and continue the prosecution. I put you on notice that in the absence of satisfactory explanations to the evidence which tends to support the view that the Neal letter is a forgery, if the police do not present you on indictment to answer the allegations, I will.
The fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions is the Sarah McNaughton SC who was personally involved in the Trade Union Royal Commission and brought singular distinctive competence to investigating various criminals who trod the Commission's carpet is a bonus. I understand the benefit of Ms McNaughton's bonus experience would accrue to the community not you, but given your constant repetition of the centrality of the Australian national interest in your life I thought you'd like to know.
I believed you then.
Ms McNaughton will of course excuse herself from involvement in this matter because of the conflict created by her experience of corrupt unionists and their hangers on. But I know the People's interests will be advanced by her ambitious staffers, keen to impress a competent boss through the diligence and completeness of the thoroughly professional prosecutions in this matter.
I know that the Director and her staff are not an investigative agency. I know that there's risk in the Public Prosecutor's reliance on the demonstrated unreliability of police forces who are doing the investigative leg work to support the allegations I've made.
That's why this first instance report of serious indictable offences to a competent authority was made to the authority responsible for the prosecution of those offences. Police have a different reaction to instructions for DPPs from those accorded mortals of lesser positional importance.
There are parallel efforts afoot to obtain the requisite sworn Affidavits a competent and apolitical police force would, as a matter of course, be obliged to obtain on the direction of the DPP to investigate the report of the serious indictable offences made out in my letter.
From: Michael Smith [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 October 2016 5:53 AM
Subject: For Ms McNaughton SC - report regarding serious indictable offences arising from Trade Union Royal Commission
Dear Ms McNaughton,
On 13 May 2014 the following documents were tendered to the Trade Union Royal Commission and received into evidence marked as Blewitt MFI7:
The letter purporting to be from Ray Neal is a forgery.
I have interviewed the purported author Ray Neal. He tells me he did not write the letter and did not authorise any other person to write a letter on his behalf.
He stated that his office held a rubber stamp to affix his signature to Certificates of Incorporation and in an initial conversation he stated it may have been affixed to the letter by another staffer on his behalf.
I asked him to compare the rubber stamp impression (taken from a Certificate of Incorporation he issued to the AWU WRA Inc) with the signature on the forged letter. He states the rubber stamp was not used on the forgery, eliminating the possibility that another official in his office may have produced the letter on his behalf.
He nominated Mr Ray Mineif (who was in charge of incorporated associations at the time of the purported letter) as the only other person who may have had a lawful right to author or send a letter such as the reported forgery.
I interviewed Mr Mineif at his home in Sydney and he was 100% certain that he did not and would not author such a preposterous offer.
I audio taped my interviews with Messrs Neal and Mineif and the recordings are located here:
There are several forensic indicators pointing to forgery compared with genuine correspondence from the Office of State Corporate Affairs at the time - to do with font, formatting, Officer handling the matter details/phone number, internal reference etc.
However each of Ray Neal and Ralph Mineif point to the preposterous nature of the purported offer-to-incorporate the subject association on the vague promise of it changing its rules 30 days post-incorporation.
The offer is beyond the powers granted to the Commissioner in The Act. The Association was ineligible for incorporation under its existing rules and objects and the Commissioner had no power in those circumstances to incorporate it. Each of Mineif and Neal told me there was strict compliance with the Act at the time and no ultra vires actions were ever contemplated much less taken.
The new "Rule 3A" is not described, nor is there any reference to the origin of the proposed rule. Further the letter refers to "the Commission" being prepared to grant incorporation - The Act defines a Commissioner but there is no Commission to perform the function described in the letter.
Each of Neal and Mineif were intelligent lively men with their wits about them. Each was emphatic in stating no such offer would or could have been made by their office. Each appeared offended at the proposition that this letter has standing in the Final Report of a Royal Commission of Enquiry as a unchallenged record of their work.
Bruce Wilson in his Witness Statement describes the circumstances in which he "found" the letters in a box in 2013. They were tendered by Dr Hanscombe QC on Wilson's instructions for the purpose of cross examining Ralph Blewitt as to his purported role as the architect and responsibility-taker-in-chief for the AWU WRA Inc fraud.
The consequent Memo from Julia Gillard to Ralph Blewitt is itself a dubious document. Had it been sent and complied with Ray Neal would have been alerted to the forged letter in 1992.
On 10 September 2014 Julia Gillard gave extensive evidence on her oath in answer to examination by Jeremy Stoljar SC before the TURC. Much of the evidence about these two Exhibits is false.
As the Commissioner noted, before 13 May 1992 the WA Office of State Corporate Affairs notified Ralph Blewitt that his application to incorporate the AWU WRA Inc had been refused as the entity was a trade union for the purposes of the WA incorporated associations act.
The Act sets out the only recourse available to an applicant refused incorporation on the ground the entity is more suited to incorporation under another act (the Trade Unions Act in this instance). That is a request for a review of the Commissioner's decision by the Minister. The fee for that review is $22 - and a cheque for $22 was the first cheque drawn on the fraudulently opened CBA Bank Account for the AWU WRA Inc cheque account.
The WA State Records Office holds a file for the Office of State Corporate Affairs 1992 correspondence on the AWU WRA Inc. It is there in the archives, I've held it in my own hands. It is empty. There is no record of the refusal to incorporate, the appeal to the minister, the representations made on behalf of the AWU WRA inc by Julia Gillard urging incorporation and arguing that the entity was not a trade union.
Nor is there any record of the Ministerial direction to incorporate the Association.
Ralph Mineif remembers the matter and recalls the Minister's intervention and direction to incorporate.
Julia Gillard argued the case to the Minister in written representations and perhaps in person. She flew to Perth apparently immediately on notification that the application had been refused. and was there during the relevant time when the application for a review of the Commissioner's decision was made.
Gillard must have therefore known that the Commissioner did not merely make enquiries about the status of the association as a trade union. He refused the application.
She must know of the appeal to the Minister because she made it. She must have known that her appeal was successful because the Association was incorporated under the Act on the instructions of the Minister.
It follows that she must have known that the purported Ray Neal letter was a forgery and not a very good one at that.
I have published summaries of some of the relevant evidence that you may find useful here:
I give you an undertaking that my communication with you will remain confidential to me and my advisors in advance of your reply. If you ask me to maintain that confidentiality regarding my report to you I will honour your request.
If you've not given me any guidance on the confidentiality issue by the end of the week I'll consider my confidentiality undertaking to have lapsed.
I have further details to support this report and the original audio evidence as well as my observations regarding the provenance of the Exhibits each of Mr Neal and Mr Mineif commented on.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am reporting this matter to you as a report of serious indictable offences. Given the use of the apparently false instruments at the TURC in the process of it hearing false and misleading evidence and the Commissioner's acceptance (in the absence of any enquiries having been made about their provenance) of the Exhibits as good and valid copies of the documents they purport to be, the use of the false instruments is an ongoing offence (particularly to the purported author) and the record should be corrected.
Rest assured it was delivered and received. I also state for the record that this letter was written by the people it shows as having having written it. Unlike a forgery which even probationary constables know is a document which tells a lie about itself, like a letter from Ray Neal that Ray NEAL can prove he didn't write, particularly if every single forensic indicator backs him up, as does the statement I've recorded from every person genuinely associated with his workplace at the time.
Stacked up against all of that evidence, a considerably better rabbit will need to be pulled from the last one whose miracle of phonation is limited to "I did nothing wrong".
ON 29 November 2012 Ms Gillard made her comments about Mr Blewitt - a full two years before I got the court file on which she based them. As in many cases with Gillard, she relied on media incuriosity and the known knowns to give her the chutzpah.
Maybe Freud was helping us
It proved useful to search for the recycled defamation matter you dealt with in the past.
"People who know Mr Blewitt (say) he's a complete imbecile, an idiot, a stooge, a sexist pig, and a liar".
Dear Ms Gillard,
Who are these people who say Mr Blewitt is a sexist pig, an imbecile and all of those other things?
Are they the people who formed a delegation to complain about Mr Blewitt's inability to perform the role of State Secretary, or as you put it, the role of Mr Wilson's "Stooge"?
Are the members of that delegation Sue Ellery, Mick Baker, Henry Rozmaniac, Len Gandini, Colin Saunders, Mick Dayes, Glen Anderton?*
Was Stephen Booth excluded from the delegation because he was a little bit too much in the know?
Was the delegation received by the late Glen Ivory prior to it attending upon Mr Blewitt?
Is this your handwriting? It's just such a good extensive example of a "known" that's been compared to some of the more exotic unknowns, it'd be good to get your confirmation as we all help to unpervert the current twistings to which certain concealing and false evidence have subjected her current course.
Was Mr Ivory asked by you in conference with Mr Wilson to prepare a statement with verbatim accounts of who said what to whom and where?
The Ivory statement with its otherwise confidential notes for you and Mr Wilson was included at the eleventh hour of these proceedings, just before the disappearance of Mr Baker.
Its inclusion is in an attempt to justify the proposition that Mr Blewitt was the author of a rather unusual document within the class of "known" example of Mr Blewitt's art (a bit like the Jukes letter to your Association in that regard).
Are you at all embarrassed? Spying on people? Writing up notes about them that result in sackings? Then outing them in public by using the words that Baker got sacked for against another of your victims Mr Blewitt?
I ask those questions to the extent your answers might assist in the quantification of damages.
You provided information of such specificity as to allow for a reasonable person who put their mind to it to identify from the public records those persons to whom you refer in your exceptionally public statement of 29 November 2012 recorded in the national archives here:
Do you owe Mr Blewitt an apology for calling him a sexist pig, an imbecile, an idiot and such other terms as which had, in your own opinion provided sufficient cause for the various legal processes in which you had acted in Mr Blewitt's defence in the past?
Did you breach any confidentiality obligation you owed Mr Blewitt or any of the other people you outed in so doing?
Do you owe the persons quoted by you an apology for misquoting them now?
Or do you owe several of them an apology for vexatious litigation back then, in particular the matter commenced by the unlawful dismissal of Mr Baker which triggered this action in the Industrial Court?****
Or the Supreme Court Defamation action which kept Mr Gandini's life in miserable Gillard inspired turmoil until well after Mr Blewitt had left the AWU.
Did you act for Mr Blewitt in this matter? Are you the Julia Gillard referred to in this correspondence?
Is the copy of the notes Mr Ivory made and which are exhibited in full at RB2 the 2nd Exhibit to Mr Blewitt's Affidavit?
Was the order of the Court as set out in Mr Blewitt's Affidavit, sworn in somewhat unusual circumstances with him in Sydney on 19 November 1993 when at all material times he was nominally Perth Based? Is Mr Blewitt accurate in saying that until that point "his solicitors" had caused the various matters in the court to be transacted?
Mr Blewitt has recanted the evidence he purports to have given in this Affidavit. Mr Blewitt states falsely in it that the only document upon which he based the letter purported to be written either by him or an imbecile, fool, stooge or a person of applying those words for opposite purposes to the same person (make your mind up) was the statement put together by Mr Ivory.
You can read the unintended consequences of thinking you'll get away with it in the full glory of our current further and better understanding of the circumstances in which Mr Ivory was asked to "get it all down mate in writing" here
It's always painful when the worlds collide, so thank you for bearing with us Ms Gillard. Ask George Costanza about the consequences of the collision of the Georges.
Oh just one more thing Ms Gillard. Having been the fiduciary for the Second Respondent, did you apply sufficient diligence to your duty in ensuring that the President's orders in relation to production of documents in scope were complied with?
It's curious that a matter commencing before His Honour in September concerning documents in the custody and control of the WA Branch Secretary or chief executive officer of the 2nd named respondent caught him by surprise to the extent established in Ms Campbell's letter.
So thus far what do we know?
On 16 June Mr Ivory produces a written statement recording who said what and when to whom. The next night he gathers the all together for a meeting they all think will help the branch along but communicating in the best of intentions their concerns about Ralph. Ralph shared their concerns in his heart of hearts.
Baker is peremptorily dismissed one month later.
The letter dismissing him is this.
The first paragraph sets out that it was the 16 June meeting that got the guy the sack.
Here's what Mr Baker's team was after.
The Gillard team argued that those communications were privileged.
Schapper put up a good case that no litigation was anticipated at the time of Mr Baker's dismissal and thus any documents prepared were not covered by LPP.
In the end Gillard got up on the LPP claim. Combine the response of Blewitt that no documents exist beyond the one describing the 16 June note and (beyond the laughable proposition Ralph is lying when he says he didn't write that letter) and Gillard allowed the LPP coverage to prove her authorship. If she wanted to say now that Wilson did it, why didn't she say so at the time?
There is no LPP claim over this letter.
The period the court ordered for access to letters files etc commenced January 1991.
Given the further and better exposition of the minutes of branch meetings at the TURC, do you really believe the paltry contributions made to complying with His Honour's Orders that you made, Ms Gillard was an example of your best efforts?
I've attached a few bits and pieces of my own process of discovery beneath this note.
Did you accurately quote those persons in your use of their statements against Mr Blewitt on 29 November 2012?
What is your reason for excluding such further contextualising matters in their statements so as to further damage Mr Blewitt?
What was the true purpose of the record made by Mr Ivory and included as the 2nd Exhibit in Mr Blewitt's Affidavit sworn in Sydney?
Was that not the very first paragraph of the combined statements?
Didn't Mr Blewitt agree with them about their observations?
Were you lying when you said he was a stooge on 29 November 2012?
Or were lying 10 September 2014 when you told the Trade Union Royal Commission that he was the person actually running the show?
Did Ms Ellery who observed that Ralph was a sexist pig say that in the context of her broader observation
Was the statement of Ms Ellery included in the sworn evidence presented to the court here true?
Why did you deny Mr Blewitt the benefit of the context in which Ms Ellery called him a sexist pig?
Was the decision to dismiss Mr Baker based on his opinions of Mr Wilson and demands that Mr Blewitt be removed for incompetence?
Was that not the trigger for you to write this letter for Mr Blewitt, or as you referred to him "The Stooge" to sign?
Mr Schapper's application is supported by other evidence I hold. Did you write the letter dismissing Mr Baker?
I'll be back with more soon, I'll put the forgery allegations to you and the report to the Commonwealth DPP which you might care to comment on.
To everyone else not suffering the creeping lividity of puppet hands:
Given what you now know about Ralph and the way he was treated, here is a interview I did with him in December 2o14. The TURC inerim report on Gillard had not been handed down and I had not then established the industrial court file's association with Ellery/Gandini et al.
You are considerably more in control of your emotions than me if you can listen to every word of this without shedding a tear.
And the action in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against Mr Gandini for defaming Mr Blewitt?
This article from 1994 gives a reasonable understanding of Bill's moves from 1989/90 on.
UNION POWER GRAB CLAIMED
|A vote yesterday by the national executive of Australia's biggest right-wing union may consolidate control in the hands of a powerful Queensland official, Mr Bill Ludwig.
Mr Ludwig, the Queensland secretary and Federal president of the Australian Workers' Union, is one of the most influential union leaders in Australia.
He said the proposal to merge the Queensland and West Australian branches of the AWU was merely an administrative measure to formalise an existing arrangement between them. The merger would be dissolved after elections next year, he said.
However, the branch merger proposal was really a way of entrenching Mr Ludwig's national control, according to opponents from sections of the Victorian branch of Mr Ludwig's union and from the Federation of Industrial Manufacturing and Engineering Employees (FIMEE) - which is amalgamating with the AWU.
Opponents of the merger proposal have also alleged financial mismanagement and enormous debts in the Victorian and West Australian AWU branches, and say the problems will not be solved by a merger.
A ballot on merging the AWU's Victorian and West Australian branches was held yesterday by the joint AWU-FIMEE executive. The result will be announced on Tuesday.
Merging the Victorian and West Australian branches of the AWU would install the Victorian branch secretary, Mr Bruce Wilson, as secretary of the AWU in both States.
Mr Wilson is a Ludwig supporter and could guarantee a block of votes to shore up Mr Ludwig's Federal leadership of the AWU.
If the merger proposal succeeded, the union would face court challenges from the Port Kembla branch and estranged Victorian unionists.
The Victorian branch of the FIMEE, in particular, is understood to bitterly oppose a merger.
The FIMEE's Victorian secretary, Mr Bob Smith, has sent an anti-merger letter to the AWU-FIMEE national executive in which he says Mr Wilson should not hold office simultaneously in two branches.
Mr Wilson came from Western Australia and still influences his union's decisions there.
Union sources said there was a strong likelihood that Mr Wilson would not win an election in either State branch, but it is understood that Mr Ludwig urged Mr Wilson to stand and needs his support for national control of the AWU. Union sources said the merger would give Mr Wilson breathing space to canvass support in both State branches before deciding which one he would stand for.
The AWU was meant to hold elections two years ago but its amalgamation with the FIMEE has delayed them until next year.
If you want to come clean now, I'll tell you where I'm headed.
I believe that from 1989/90 when the Slater and Gordon partnership took on the AWU in Melbourne and you were thus first introduced to Mr Ludwig and Mr Wilson,:
That you Julie GILLARD were acting informally for a partnership to the extent any of its aims were lawful or a conspiracy including Bill Ludwig, Bruce Wilson and from time to time your self.
The reasons for my belief about actions for that partnership commencing in 1989/90 are set out here:
I refer you to this March 1996 article from the BRW on Portrait of a Man,
Portrait of a Union about Bruce Wilson which you published some time ago.
It helps with the timeline and also has direct quotes from Wilson, Keenan
Then we have Bruce Wilson’s statement to TURC to assist.
According to Wilson, in early 1989 after the National Executive Meeting at
which he was a WA delegate (as a WA Vice President elected 1985), on a
flight back to Perth with Keenan who was also a WA delegate in his
capacity as Secretary of the WA branch, Keenan sacked him from his
position as organiser of the WA branch. He was sacked for not following
voting instructions. Keenan made Wilson’s position as a WA branch
organiser redundant. Wilson was now without official standing in the WA
branch but was still a WA delegate at National Executive meetings.
After he was sacked Wilson had talks with Ludwig about getting an
appointment as a National Organiser in WA. The position of National
Organiser did not exist. It was to be a new position.
Now Wilson says that he drafted a resolution to put to the Executive.
That was put to an executive meeting on 28 June 1990 and his appointment
was to take effect on 2 July 1990. There was a challenge to the validity
of the resolution on the basis that it was not in accordance with the
At this point in time, Wilson has lost his job as a WA organiser. He does
not have the backing of his WA union nor the services of their legal
advisers. He is involved in a Court action before Justice Einfeld over
the validity of the resolution as a Respondent.
Who gave him legal advice on the resolution for the position of National
Organiser being within the Rules? Wilson said he drafted it.
Wilson had to get this position as National Organiser who was to be based
in the Perth office of AWU WA branch to launch his campaign to unseat
Keenan and with him Isherwood to become WA Secretary.
Gillard told her Partners –
“…He had a falling out with the then secretary. The secretary had
dismissed him. He had been appointed as a national organiser ‘cause he
enjoyed national support. He had run in the elections as national
secretary contender. He hadn’t been successful in that but he had run it
close. He was AT THAT POINT basically stalking the then WA secretary with
a view to getting him out and taking his position, and he needed some
advice about arrangements to do that. And Graham Droppit asked me if I
could give him some advice when I was over there about those things. So I
ran the full bench appeal like a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, something
like that, and I stayed on in Perth on the Saturday for the purpose of
meeting with Wilson.”
On 22 March 1991 Justice Einfeld ruled in favour of the resolution. I’d
imagine that Wilson had not been able to act as National Organiser until
his appointment was validated by the Court.
*(Sorry about the shock of the Anderton name appearing here, I felt the chill that would run up your spine at the record of Mr Anderton's presence - yes, it's that Mr Anderton, the one from the "basically stalking Joe Keenan" glory days, which just FYI the records have as commencing with Mr Ludwig's involvement and rather a good deal earlier than your information to Mr Gordon in the record of interview would suggest, but I digress)?
**Is that your Declaration? Does it have your signature and handwriting thereon? Did you swear to Almighty God that the Declaration you made therein was true and correct and that was your signature and handwriting thereon? (Sorry for tying you down, it's just it's such a good sample of "knowns" that it could assist in unperverting the course of justice to clear a few things up while we're on the way.)
***Was it your usual practice to pursue the purchase of such means of postal transmission as might be capable of providing the proof of service all by yourself? Isn't that a rather costly imposition on your client vis a vis the economic impact of having service effected by, say the less well paid people whose job it is to do such things? What was the reaction of those learned friends to whom was owed a duty by you of actions in utmost good faith if at some point they learned your client was not billed for the time thus taken?
****And the action in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against Mr Gandini for defaming Mr Blewitt?
How is it that you were able to conduct the complex litigation in which you acted for Mr Blewitt in 1993, as well as the complex matter in which you acted for him in the Industrial Court of Australia in the harmonisation of the state and federal based AWU Rules without a delegation of his powers to a local attorney?
Your persistence in those complex matters to completion without a delegation of his powers to an attorney local to you demonstrates your confidence on dealing with him long distance. The Auctioneer at the Kerr Street auction read aloud, as required by law, the statement that a bidder at the auction, as a right, may sign the papers in the Contract of Sale and at any time up until completion, nominate the person in whose name the sale will be effected. Your presence at auction and aural acuity is sufficient evidence to prove your knowledge, particularly with the confirmation of the Auctioneer that his auction was legally conducted. What was the true purpose of the Power of Attorney? Why did you deny to Mr Gordon knowledge of provision by your Socialist Forum colleague Mr Rothfield of a Mortgage using the firm's facility?
Thanks to our reader Dean who went on our behalf to the WA State Archives we now have the complete file in the matter of Mick Baker v Ralph Blewitt.
Baker had lost his job. He was in a very good position legally to be compensated, he had plenty of witnesses and helpful documents. He was all set to go with his lawyer briefed, ready for action and present at the court-room as the court was brought into session.
But Baker didn't turn up for the hearing. His application was discontinued on the grounds that his lawyer could not contact him to receive further instructions. Something made Mick Baker just cop his sacking sweet and disappear.
I'm told Mr Baker has since passed away. I have inquiries under way at present.
We'll try to find out what - or who - made him decide it would be in his best interests not to go to court or talk to his lawyer that day.
Blewitt's election challenge, ruling of the court delivered in 1990
1989 - Bruce Wilson and Bill Ludwig ran on joint ticket as Secretary (Wilson) and President (Ludwig) of the AWU. Ludwig got up, Wilson didn't. Wilson was sacked from his job as an organiser in WA - Ludwig appointed him as a National Organiser based on Perth. They were very close.
An understanding of the Ludwig/Wilson/Gillard relationship is central to understanding the AWU Scandal.
Read more in this BRW magazine article "Portrait of a Man, Portrait of a Union".
The 1989 Ludwig/Wilson joint ticket pamphlets are here:
disgraced now but then Justice Enfield ruled in Wilson's favour in this 1990 judgement on the validity of the appointment Ludwig made for Wilson in a tailor made job. This is intricately involved with the "stalking" of Keenan. I believe this was the legal advice Gillard gave the Wilson/Ludwig partnership.
May 1991 - Wilson appointed AWU WA Secretary with Ludwig's support along and Gillard's help on the legal details - background and 3 Federal Court Judgements here.
Gillard's first legal work for Wilson was controversial to say the least - she gave advice on how to unseat the incumbent AWU state secretary so Wilson could take his job.
Here's Gillard in her departure interview describing what she did to advance Wilson's personal interests against those of Keenan and Isherwood then representing the AWU.
I disbelieve Gillard. My reasons are here.
On 2 May 1991 Bruce Wilson was appointed Secretary of the AWU WA Branch after a coup d'etat in which secretary VJ Keenan and President Joe Isherwood "resigned".
That coup had a legal advisor, Julia Gillard.
In April 1991 Gillard was in Perth and spent at least one day providing advice about the rules of the AWU to help engineer Keenan's removal and Wilson's elevation. Here is an extract from her 11 September, 1995 departure interview from Slater and Gordon.
On 10 September 2014 Gillard gave evidence about this matter under oath at the Royal Commission
On the evidence above, Gillard provided legal advice to an AWU organiser, a relatively lowly paid unelected employee who had no authority to incur costs in a matter like this. The advice, on her own admission, related to the means by which he might depose an elected official he had been "stalking", the legally appointed AWU Branch Secretary.
The minutes of the 2 May 1991 meeting above show that Keenan was given a paid job as part of the deal. Joe Isherwood left his job as President on the same day and he was replaced by the now deceased Glen Ivory. This Federal Court judgement tells the Ivory/Isherwood/Wilson/Blewitt story, it was an expensive and protracted legal proceeding - it's also a fascinating read, more about it soon.
The first day of the two day Executive meeting concluded that this:
Here's a link to the Einfeld Order referred to above.
It appears that negotiations to finalise Keenan's orderly departure might have continued that night.
On 3 May 1991 the Executive meeting continued for its 2nd day - Keenan got an official portrait painted, expenses approved, appreciation for a lifetime of service and acknowledgement of the high regard he was held in. Isherwood had to make do acknowledgement of his contribution.
On 20 August 1991 Gillard gave this very detailed written legal advice regarding the effect of the rules of the AWU in another dispute over removing/replacing officials.
So by August 1991 there are several examples of Gillard providing detailed advice about the AWU's rules and its interactions with various industrial relations laws. She also demonstrated her willingness to provide formal legal advice to advance the interests of Wilson (an unelected and then relatively junior employee of the union) over the interests of the elected official office holders.
We will pass over the late 1991 developments about Dawesville, pass over the 1991/92 AWU WRA Inc and pass over the purchase of Kerr Street for the purposes of this post.
On Friday 3 July 1992 the WA Branch Executive again met, the minutes record Wilson's move to the Victorian Secretary role.
Also in those minutes is a record of Joe Isherwood's removal from the union and the Branch's decision not to pay the legal fees he incurred while he was President.
Those minutes refer to a Federal Court action brought by Glen Ivory which sought to overturn Isherwood's election as President. It's pretty rich that Wilson and his team were prepared to do that to Isherwood - read the judgement from the Federal Court here. Ivory wanted Isherwood's job and Ivory was supported by Wilson in this court action. The end result was that Ivory's application to the court was unsuccessful, he lost, Isherwood won, but by the time the Decision was delivered the coup d'etat was complete by other means, Isherwood was gone and Wilson and his mates decided the AWU would not pay his legal bills. Nice blokes. Lucky Bruce had Julia.
On 12 November 1992 the Executive met again. Wilson got an extra 3 months in Melbourne
Hidden away in those minutes was this report about the AWU WA branch solicitors (Slater and Gordon ie Gillard) updating the union's rules.
On 18 February 1993 the WA Branch Executive met (power of attorney time), the minutes are here.
Wilson was by then permanent Victoria Branch Secretary, so the first order of business in the WA Executive meeting was this:
Having been invited to attend, Wilson formally resigned and Blewitt was on that day formally appointed as WA Branch Secretary.
Ralph Blewitt had by then been acting WA Branch Secretary for 7 months. He tells me he did exactly as Bruce Wilson told him to do during the whole of his time as Secretary, both acting and after his formal appointment.
The last point noted in the February 1993 meeting was this heated exchange with Mick Baker, the Secretary of the WA Mining Division of the AWU - the significance will become clear shortly.
Blewitt says that it was around the time of this meeting, 13 February 1993, that Wilson handed him the notorious Power of Attorney to sign, in Perth, without Gillard.
On 22 March 1993 the Kerr Street purchase settled - it required a Power of Attorney.
On 10 June, 1993 the AWU WA Branch's new rules prepared by Ms Gillard were officially endorsed by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission
Deputy President Acton noted:
I listed this matter for hearing on 9 June 1993 in Sydney. On that occasion Mr R. McClelland, solicitor, appeared for the AWU and Ms J. Gillard, solicitor, appeared for the AWU, WA Branch. At the hearing Mr McClelland provided a revised S.202 agreement, which was executed on 8 June 1993 and which it was intended be substituted for the agreement earlier lodged in the Registry, and took the Commission through its contents. Ms Gillard then tendered an affidavit of Ralph Edwin Blewitt, Secretary of the AWU, WA Branch and Mr McClelland tendered an affidavit of Michael George Forshaw, General Secretary of the AWU.
You'll find all the details here. Ms Gillard could transact that complex matter with Blewitt in person, even though he was in Perth, she was in Melbourne and the matter was heard in Sydney. But she couldn't complete a simple property purchase in his name without creating a Power of Attorney for her boyfriend Wilson.
That brings us to mid 1993. Wilson was in Kerr Street, renovators were in Abbotsford, wads of cash were in bib and brace overalls and some apparently very pissed off AWU officials were getting fired up in Perth.
In October 1993 Ralph Blewitt sued certain union officials in the AWU WA Branch for defamation after they'd produced flyers calling his leadership into doubt.
I have much more - you can access it all on this website holding the 5,500 posts I've made and the 338, 119 comments our readers have made along the way.
I'd ask that any competent authority reading this consider Mr Blewitt's contribution to his country in SVN in 67 but more importantly in his openness, self incrimination without any protection from prosecution and right now in the temporal protection of which he may stand in need.
May I ask that competent debriefers to brought to him so as to record in a useful way his unique living contribution to a part of our country's history, the importance of which will only be obvious many years from now.
Every touch leaves its trace.
For Wendy and Elisabeth.