Previous month:
December 2016
Next month:
February 2017

January 2017

Bill Clinton invited "closest supporter" Julie Bishop to a CF internal planning day

Screen Shot 2017-01-28 at 9.45.23 am

In May 2015 Bill Clinton thought of Julie Bishop as one of the Clinton Foundation's  "closest supporters" - so close and so supportive he invited her to New York for the CF's annual internal planning retreat.

Clinton's personal invitation was delivered through then Ambassador Kim Beazley direct to the Foreign Minister's office.

Clinton used the formal diplomatic channel to ask our Foreign Minister to take part in the planning day with him and his top advisors/leadership team "to celebrate our shared success, reflect on recent accomplishments and engage in discussion around our priorities for the year ahead."

"We hope you'll join us to share your input and to help us shape our work for the years to come.  Thank you for your continued friendship and thought leadership".

This is just over 18 months ago.  The level of intimacy given recent disclosures is frightening.

Just months prior to the invitation, Bishop was in New York for the Clinton Global Initiative where she made this announcement:

Screen Shot 2017-01-28 at 11.29.09 am

Australia and the Clinton Health Access Initiative transforming health in the Asia Pacific region

Media release

22 September 2014

Former US President Bill Clinton and I have witnessed the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) committing Australia and the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) to work together to transform access to health in developing countries over the next five years.

The MOU will support Australia’s $5 billion aid program, which encourages innovation in research and new technologies to promote sustainable economic growth and alleviate poverty. It will also build expertise and networks in facilitating public‑private partnerships, civil society, and private sector financing for health investments.

Australia has previously worked with CHAI in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Vietnam and China to build capacity in government health services and systems, improve access to life‑saving technologies and lower the costs of treatment.

The Australian Government will pursue these innovative partnerships to strengthen health systems, improve maternal and child health and tackle communicable diseases, including control of drug-resistant malaria and tuberculosis.

I have announced the establishment of a Development Innovation Hub within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade which will test creative ideas and strategies to address different development challenges.

Since 2006, Australia has contributed $88 million to CHAI and its sister organisation, the Clinton Foundation.


Through a lack of due diligence or worse Bishop helped Clinton and Ira Magaziner out of a big hole by signing the MOU.  It airbrushed away the deregistered and fraudulently incorporated and operated Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative Inc (CHAI), replacing it with the Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc (CHAI).

And she committed us to working with Clinton for 5 years - that is to just on 2020 - nominating the CF's role as "supporting Australia's $5 Billion aid effort.

But Bishop's collusion with the Clintons takes on something of a more sinister hue when we consider adjacent events.  HIV/Aids isn't the only profit centre exploited by the Clintons.  Climate change is another lucrative earner.

Clinton's May invitation came as Tony Abbott's leadership was being whiteanted and as you'll see, Tony Abbott had many global environmental and Leftist groups who wanted to help kick that process along.

This report from the AFR in February 2015 sets the scene:

Screen Shot 2017-01-28 at 10.32.27 am

A federal MP has emailed colleagues pleading for calm as Tony Abbott ’s hold on the leadership became increasingly tenuous after Julie Bishop refused to give the Prime Minister an assurance she would not challenge.

A day after his National Press Club address, in which he appeared to buy some respite from his leadership woes, Sky News reported that at a meeting on Sunday, Ms Bishop had declined to give Mr Abbott an assurance when he sought one.

The Australian Financial Review previously reported that at the meeting, Ms Bishop confronted Mr Abbott with the concerns of the backbench to which she had been talking all week and she sought from him an answer as to how he planned to turn things around.

Read more:

The New York Times also took an interest, publishing a story under the headline "Australian Leader Alters Course After Losing State Vote".

In the lead-up to the Clinton Foundation's retreat in May the extent of the network of Abbott enemies was becoming crystal clear.

Here's a grab of The Sunrise Project's website

Screen Shot 2017-01-28 at 10.50.03 am

Sunrise was then engaged in a whatever it takes battle to stop the Adani coal mine in Queensland.  With Labor back in power in Queensland they had a bit of wind in their sails - however Tony Abbott was still their major concern.

On 25 May 2015 John Hepburn, the Executive Director of Sunrise sent this email to a select group of 'discrete' funders and controllers including John Podesta and the Clinton Foundation. 

....the Abbott Government has established a Parliamentary Inquiry to examine the activities of environmental charities. It is part of an anti-environmental agenda that has been building for a few years now and is being pushed in large part by the mining industry as well as by various right wing think tanks and far-right members of the Liberal Party.

 I have attached a word document with a series of articles that ran in the Australian Financial Review and The Australian last week, including one in which the head of the Minerals Council called for The Sunrise Project to have it's charitable status removed. We posted a blog on our website saying that fossil fuels in the Galilee Basin should stay in the ground, and the next day the head of the most powerful industry group in the country is in the paper calling for our charity status to be revoked.

 The long and the short of it is that

  1. There is a reasonable likelihood that Sunrise will be called to testify to the inquiry;
  2. It is a House of Representatives Committee that has very strong coercive powers to summon witnesses and to call for documents to be tabled;
  3. This could potentially include board minutes, grant agreements etc
  4. If I refuse, the maximum penalty is 6 months in jail. If I didn't have children I'd be happy to tell them where to go (on principle) but it isn't really an option;
  5. This potentially creates a situation where we may need to disclose our funding and grant agreements;

Next steps: We have a strategy session with our lawyers and board on Thursday to plan out our response. As part of this we are seeking advice on steps we might take to avoid disclosure, challenge and limit disclosure, or to ensure that any disclosure is limited to the committee members and is not made public.

I  have concerns about the potential PR impact of disclosure of both our funding and grantees - should that eventuate.


The next significant contribution came from Ken Roth, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch.  Roth is writing to Herb Sandler of the Sandler Foundation  - with Podesta/Hillary and the CF all copied in unashamedly on the note:

Dear Herb,

I’ll ask our new Australia office to look into this. As I mentioned in your office, Australia has a ridiculously narrow concept of a charity which does NOT include advocacy.

This is not uncommon in the Commonwealth. For example, in the UK, HRW had to establish a charitable trust which funds only our research, not our advocacy. We tried something similar in Australia but the tax authorities rejected us, so after a 4-year struggle, we ended up going to parliament in the waning days of the Labor government and got it to give us charitable status by special parliamentary bill.

So far the Liberals haven’t played with that...themining companies seem to own the Liberals, and they play very dirty. Please keep me informed of what more happens in this case, and I’ll let you know if our Australia office has anything to add.

Warm regards, Ken

That same day the Podestas started taking a great interest in East Timor and George Soros funding to crank up the litigation pressure on Australia as this email from 24 May 2015 shows

We reported the end result of that matter a couple of weeks ago:

Julie Bishop gives in to Soros et al and gives up on our border with East Timor

24 May, 2015.  Email John Podesta to Hillary Clinton's campaign chief John Podesta under the heading 

        Do you know who cares about East Timor?

"Rumor is soros, The Australian government got the East Timor government to give up their coastal waters to Australia Hence oil Might someone fund/support East Timor government efforts to reclaim just boundaries Australian friend working on this Let me know if u know anything or care? Thanks much Tony (sic)"

Screen Shot 2017-01-10 at 4.29.55 am

Our boundary with East Timor is based on the geography of our Continental Shelf.  It's the same basis for our maritime border with Indonesia.

The Treaty that describes (or should I say described) the Timor/Australia border was jointly agreed in 2006.  Regardless of the geography, the treaty provided that East Timorese would receive a 50% share of the oil and gas revenues generated in the maritime region.

But that wasn't enough.

As we reported to you in October last year, The Clintons, Podesta and Soros have been at work trying to diminish Australia's sovereignty (particularly under the Abbott Government).


There are many more examples of the climate lobby, the "progressives network", environmental activist funding groups and others working jointly with Clinton/Podesta to target Tony Abbott.

And who did Clinton hand-pick to take part in his internal annual strategy planning day on 29 May 2015?

Screen Shot 2017-01-28 at 11.26.26 am

Last September I reported this to you - click on the headline to read the much longer and more complete original report.

Julie Bishop has potentially given the Clintons a piece of every single $3.8BN PA Australian aid contract

Hands up all those who'd like a piece of Australia's $3.8BN annual aid program?

Just clip the ticket from every contract let.  You little ripper!

Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 4.10.06 pm

Do some of the ideas in this June, 2014 video from the "Shared Value Initiative" sound familiar?

Here are Ira Magaziner and Bill Clinton talking about their plans to monetize charity and aid in 2007 - right about the time the Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative Inc was being deregistered for failure to adhere to financial regulations.

Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 3.03.35 pm

Today we unveil another of the Clinton Foundation's clandestine influence peddling incursions into Australia's foreign aid funding arrangements.

This is a doozy.  

It happened with Julie Bishop's active assistance.  Bill couldn't have done it without her.

We're used to the Clinton Foundation securing hundreds of millions in donations under the cover of contracts for HIV/Aids, Climate Change, Women, Racism etc.

Julie Bishop's changes would position Clinton associated interests at the head of every single aid/development contract between commercial entities and the Australian Government.

A new way of doing business indeed.

On 31 August 2015 Julie Bishop made this announcement:


Today I announce a new strategy to enhance the Australian Government’s engagement with the private sector across all areas of the aid program.

Engaging the Private Sector: Creating Shared Value Through Partnership invites business to work with the Australian Government to help solve our region’s development challenges.

Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 3.23.09 pm

Here's Julie introducing the benign sounding arrangements in September 2015.  To get with the program, you'll have to get with the program, which means using the shared value jargon etc.

Here is the website for the Shared Value Project as launched by Julie Bishop in her "new strategy" announcement on 31 August 2015.

Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 3.31.34 pm

Julie tells us that the science is settled on how Australia's aid should be spent.  There is no less an authority than a "global consensus" standing behind this Clinton baby.

Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 3.35.57 pm

So what is The Shared Value Project in Australia, the key to Bishop's "strategy to enhance the Australian Government’s engagement with the private sector across all areas of the aid program".


Julie Bishop's Branch Office Australia

Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 3.42.04 pm

About the Shared Value Project

The Shared Value Project is the peak practice body for shared value in Australasia, and the exclusive regional partner of the Shared Value Initiative.

Click on it.  You know you want to.

Bill and Hillary Clinton's Head Office

Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 3.44.27 pm

How @ClintonGlobal Changed the World By Changing Corporate #Philanthropy via @VitalityUSA@Discovery_SA

Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 4.01.23 pm

The Clinton Foundation (and its multifarious, nefarious connections and colourful business identity friends) jumped on board the revolutionary Shared Value Idea on 2012.

Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 3.50.01 pm

By Monday, 12 May 2014, one year before J. Bishop discovered it, Professor Michael Porter's revolutionary idea that shared value means “creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society" had been bought big time by the Clintons.

Shared value like GMH making money out of cars that get you places.  Or hotel rooms that let you snore privately.  Drug companies that make dough by making you better etc.  

I think Porter should have quit at 5 forces.

Three Ways CGI Commitments Integrate Shared Value


0 0 1

This week, the Shared Value Leadership Summit meets in New York City, featuring contributions by a number of members of the CGI community. Tomorrow morning’s opening session— which will be live webcast—includes remarks from Professor Michael E. Porter and a panel including Tony O. Elumelu of Heirs Holdings and Arif Naqvi of The Abraaj Group. The summit itself is a result of a 2012 CGI Commitment to Action by FSG and partners to launch the Shared Value Initiative (SVI), with the goal of helping companies learn about and adopt principles of “shared value.”

As defined by Porter and Mark R. Kramer in 2011, shared value means “creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society.” As part of the 2012 commitment, SVI works with its partners to spread learnings and the practice of shared value concepts, and developing research to this effect. Since 2012, SVI has doubled its commitment partners from 15 to 30, including a variety of CGI members from across sectors. SVI has also certified more than 80 individuals as “shared value consultants,” and is engaging over 2,000 professionals on a regular basis through their online platform. 

Michael Porter and Mark Kramer's Foundation Strategy Group was set up in 1999 to help charities do good.   God only knows what they were on when they allowed the Clinton virus in.

It took the Clinton magic and 17 years of thinking music for Australia to work out that the future for our nation's aid program involved doing things of economic value that also create value for society.

So there you have it.  Why sweat it out competing for individual contracts when you can clip the ticket for all of them.

Oh, and you'll never guess what one of the showcase Sharing Value projects for DFAT is!

Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 4.00.57 pm

Clinton Giustra, Julie and the Indonesian coconuts!

Screen Shot 2017-01-28 at 11.35.37 am

There's something apt about the white shoe brigade men inviting Ms Bishop to be a part of their plans.

Screen Shot 2017-01-28 at 8.48.05 am Screen Shot 2017-01-28 at 8.47.48 am

Screen Shot 2017-01-28 at 11.39.13 am

Wayne Swan FI - strip tax evaders of Order of Australia. How about tax-free home renos?

Here's Swan in the AFR.


It's a fair enough point.

"No one found guilty of deliberately breaking the law to reduce their financial contribution to our country can be considered to be 'in service' to Australia".

Gillard is still arguing the toss about the slush fund cash Bruce handed over to the builder Athol James to pay for her renos.

Having denied receiving the tainted money for so long, it's unlikely she's made an exception for the ATO and declared the income she received as payment for her legal work for Wilson and Ludwig.

Swan FI is right on this one.   Hand it back please. 

How could Tony Abbott put Rudd and Gillard up for gongs?


I published this piece in June last year.

Australia's former PMs have always been offered a Companion spot in the Order of Australia until.......

Until recently every past prime minister was offered a Companion in the Order of Australia, the Order's highest honour.

Paul Keating famously refused it - reports from the time are summarised in Wikipedia here:

Retirement and later life[edit]

 In 1997, Keating declined appointment as a Companion of the Order of Australia, an honour which has been offered to all former Prime Ministers since the modern Australian Honours System was introduced in 1975.[41]

The footnote takes us here

Screen Shot 2015-06-02 at 9.38.12 am

The NAA publication is a fair bit out of date - Kevin Rudd became a former PM in June 2010 (and again in 2013).    Gillard was rolled on 26 June 2013.   That's five years to mull over Rudd's first period of achievement as PM and 2 years for analysis post Gillard's possie.

I remember the hooha when Mr Keating knocked back the gong.   There appeared at the time to be some sort of convention that those who'd held Australia's top job should get the top honour.

John Howard was made a Companion in the Order in August 2008, 9 months after his November 2007 election loss.

Bob Hawke was made an AC in 1979 before he became Prime Minister.

The late Gough Whitlam was made a Companion of the Order of Australia in June 1978 on leaving the Parliament.

The late Malcolm Fraser was made a Companion in 1988.

The entire list of Companions is at the link below, replete with many state premiers as well as the former PMs.

Rudd and Gillard are notably absent.  I can't imagine either of them doing a Keating and knocking it back.  Each of them would have the draft citation in their back pocket - Rudd for services to the world and Gillard for calling out misogyny or something new agey.

Five years now to analyse Rudd's "outcomes"  first time round in the top job.   Two years post Gillard.   And still no blue ribbon to recognise their "achievements".

Like to take a stab at what would be in their nomination material?

Screen Shot 2015-06-02 at 10.29.09 am


Here's an extract from The Australian today


Abbott nominated Rudd and Gillard for gong but just one got the gong

Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd were both nominated to receive Companions of the Order of Australia.

Tony Abbott formally supported the nominations of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard to be made Companions of the Order of Australia (AC) nearly three years ago, but only Ms Gillard was awarded the nation’s top honour this week.

Ms Gillard’s award came despite Mr Rudd being elected prime minister before her.

In 2014, as prime minister, Mr Abbott wrote two letters at the request of the Australian Honours and Awards Secretariat testifying to Mr Rudd’s and Ms Gillard’s suitability to be given the prestigious award.

The letters reflected Mr Abbott’s respect for the office of prime minister and were generous in recognising what his predecessors would identify as their achievements.

It is also understood he acknowledged that their service to Australia was of the highest degree, which the award symbolises.

The Weekend Australian can further reveal that Mr Abbott’s letter concerning Ms Gillard recognised the significance to the nation of her becoming the first female prime minister and her advocacy of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

His letter commending Mr Rudd for the honour praised his apology to the Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Australians in February 2008 and the unique circumstances of being prime minister on two separate occasions.

Mr Abbott also recognised the burden that his predecessors had of leading the nation while Australian Defence Force men and women were serving in Afghanistan, Australia’s longest war.

As part of the Australia Day honours list this week, Ms Gillard was made a Companion of the Order of Australia. But, controversially, Mr Rudd was not included. It is an unofficial tradition that the award be given speedily to former prime ministers.

A source in the Governor-Genera­l’s office said a perennial problem for the selection body that recommends nominees for honours was that nominations come from the general public, and not enough of them were for women. “There is that element of it,” the source said. “More women need to be nominated.”


Tony Abbott how could you?

Do me a favour? Write to the bosses of FedEx. This FedEx employee needs a medal.

Get the FedEx website ready -

Now watch this - a courier driver out doing his rounds today in Iowa was confronted with this.

I spent 8 years in the army and about 5 in the Victoria Police Force.  I would kick a door in with this guy any day.

Guts Plus.

Go you good thing.  Mate you seized the initiative, you had a higher purpose and you did not give up.  



On this day, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Bill Clinton

27 January 1998

It's an important anniversary because it led to his impeachment and findings against him for perjury.  The sanctions included loss of his state and federal legal practitioner certification - and thus his disqualification from acting as a manager, officer, director or trustee of a charity.

It's important to note that Australia's February 2006 MoU with the Clinton Foundation was not executed by an officer or authorised person legally able to make any commitment on behalf of the Foundation.  It was signed by a bloke off the street, disbarred lawyer Bill - thus it had no standing at all.  Not bad for a $25M giveaway from Australian taxpayers.

Beyond the perjury and penalties check out how convincingly he lies.  Tells you all you need to know about him and the people prepared to do business with him.

No wonder one of his first business ventures was flogging dodgy Indian drugs that didn't work.


If you have the time, watch the few minutes leading up to the big lie.  Check him out when he talks about the bloke who's donating $50M for after school care. I think that was the moment the Clinton Foundation "clip the ticket" business model sprag to life.

The Story Behind Bill Clinton's Infamous Denial

Jan 27, 2015

It was on this day in 1998 that President Bill Clinton (as seen around 6:18 in the video above) uttered 11 words that would go down in history: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."

Though the definition of "sexual relations" — and other phrases — may be questioned, even in hindsight, Clinton did eventually end up admitting to an affair.

So why did he say those 11 words in the first place?

One possible explanation can be found in the Feb. 9, 1998, TIME special report that explored the impact of that speech:

While Starr was trying to make his case, Clinton's job last week was to persuade the American people to reserve judgment, let the investigation proceed and bear with the Great Explainer's refusal to explain much of anything. So after days of watery nondenials and rumors of resignation, last Monday Clinton finally gave voters who wanted to believe in him an excuse to do so. In the Roosevelt Room of the White House Monday morning, with Hillary beside him, he stared into the camera and narrowed his eyes. "I want you to listen to me," he said. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never."

It was an enormous gamble, the result of a fierce White House battle. While Clinton had for days been urged by adviser Mickey Kantor and others to toughen his denial, the Monday morning statement was finally worked out in a post-midnight strategy session with former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes and Hollywood imagineer Harry Thomason. Ickes, the street-smart infighter who had steered Clinton's re-election campaign only to be bumped out of a second-term job, flew in from California and went straight to the White House. Ickes' prescription for the President: Look the people straight in the eye and, to the extent you and your lawyer are confident, say, "I didn't do it." Only a loud, unambiguous denial would "stanch the wound," Ickes said. Thomason, meanwhile, helped the President rehearse the stern, reproving body language, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

It was the first of several turning points, and it worked. That afternoon, when Hillary arrived in Harlem to visit an after-school program, the crowd was jeering reporters, chanting, "Leave Bill alone!"

Read more about the semantics of the statement, here in the TIME Vault: When Is Sex Not 'Sexual Relations'?

Gillard was a politician long before she was a lawyer..............

The paper below was produced by StephenJ.

Gillard's actions as a lawyer make a bit more sense when considered in the context of a "whatever it takes" political career, which included some part time work as a lawyer.

Next up - a few comments about Bruce Wilson and his 1985-1989 travels - crossing paths with the ambitious Labor Party up and comer Gillard.


The Motives of J E Gillard

The Trade Union Royal Commission at various points examined the motives of J E Gillard (Gillard) in relation to various aspects of the course of conduct that could be described compendiously as the AWU Workplace Reform Association Fraud (the WRA fraud).

Its findings in relation to these aspects are dealt with under subsequent points, however generally, it accepted her evidence as to her perception of her duties and motivations and applied a relaxed standard when assessing the level of competence she exhibited. 

We believe that the approach of the Royal Commission was fundamentally flawed in looking at these events as separate matters rather than as steps within the context of the overall fraud.

When those steps are considered in this wider perspective we believe a consistent explanation emerges of the motives behind each one.

1.1 Character of Gillard

It is stating the obvious to assert that a person does not become Prime Minister without possessing a well developed political instinct and the inclination to use power with an appropriate ruthlessness when needed.

1.2 Observations

According to Kents biography when Gillard discovered that Wilson had been involved in fraudulent activities “ she cut it (the relationship) cold and never saw him again”.

She also refers to Gillards single minded ambition to advance in politics which supposedly caused her to give up a career in Law to pursue a political career which may never have eventuated.

Christine Wallace in her unpublished biography has some further observations.


When a timid Labor caucus finally moved to topple Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard was ready. This was a politician at the top of her form: diligent, hardworking and talented. Here, too, was a woman who had a keenly developed understanding of power - what it is, how to acquire it and how to wield it. In this insightful, hard hitting and robust portrait of Australia's most powerful woman, Canberra insider Christine Wallace reveals the real Julia Gillard. She introduces a brilliant and ambitious operator with genuine personal warmth, charm and charisma. And just as convincingly, she uncovers the contradictions, tensions and frailties of Gillard's personality. It may not have always been pretty. Sometimes it hasn't looked principled. Occasionally the company she has kept has been questionable, but there is no denying Julia Gillard's achievements. Yet the question remains, as tough and effective as she seems, is Julia Gillard really a politician for the times?

Steve Bracks recounts the observations of his wife.


Gillards focus has been commented on by her long term friend Julie Ligeti.


When she was elected education vice-president of the Australian Union of Students (AUS) in 1982 she deferred her studies and moved to Melbourne, into a share house in Brunswick. Old friend Julie Ligeti was struck even then by how serious Gillard was about politics. "We were all trying to work out how we were going to buy our first car or which share house we were going to live in. Julia had this other level happening.

She was beginning her career in politics." Personal ambition and agitation for change appeared to dovetail. "She had a clear view at a very young age that she wanted to make a mark in Labor politics. But it wasn't just about identifying her own opportunities, she was also trying to push society along," says Ligeti

The Age May 18 2007.

It is important to recognise that Gillard was a politician long before she was a solicitor.

Normal experience would indicate that people in a long term relationship would discuss the major events occurring in their working lives.

Nothing in what has been set out above would indicate that Gillard was a person who would decline to enquire or be fobbed off with fatuous explanations and there can be no doubt that the Dawesville project and the supposed funding it was to provide for Wilsons NCB concept was something of fundamental importance to him.

As acknowledged in 2006 in her appearance on the ABC's Australian
Story described in this article :

'If there is one constant in Gillard's career, it is an understanding of power and how it works. As she says, she didn't get to where she is by being a Doris Day - a reference to the 1960s actress with the girl-next-door screen image. As she said in 2006: "I had to fight hard to get preselected, I had to play a factional game to do that, I had to count numbers, I had to make deals and I'd do all of that again tomorrow if I needed to." '

This position has been reinforced by Blewitt in a response on Michael Smith News

GOM said in reply to Kathryn.E... 

During this whole period 1991 until 1995 I was Bruce Wilson's closest friend and associate and directly involved in almost everything that when on and I can say without a shadow of doubt that Bruce and Julia discussed everything about not only the AWU WPRA, but general AWU business and ALP business as well it was what they had in common outside of the bedroom gymnastics.
Whilst Bruce was in WA he was in constant communication with her about all manner of things related to union business.
Wilson was an expert in the rules of the AWU he used his knowledge to advantage when issues where raised at either WA State branch Executive meetings and at Federal Executive meetings, and I know he when in doubt he would contact Gillard or Murphy for an opinion on interpretation of a rule and I would go so far as to say Ludwig knew this as well and used Wilson at Federal Executive meeting to push points when rules where challenged.
They (Wilson/ Gillard) where ideally suited to one another he was ambitious up and coming leader in the union possibly within the ALP as well and she as we now know had political ambitions and used Wilson for his powerful connections within the AWU and as in it turns out it was the AWU that put Gillard into the lodge.
Yes they talked and apart from when they where under the sheets,I was very much aware of there daily communications. 

Reply Thursday, 25 September 2014 at 09:22 AM 

1.3 Conclusions

The picture that emerges is of a focussed and driven individual who has an eye for detail and the ability to make the political deals necessary from time to time in order to advance her interests.

It is not the picture of someone who would undertake the incorporation of an Association in a “casual or haphazard” way or who would accept instructions on the reasons for that incorporation which at a relatively cursory level make no sense.

It is not a description of someone who would persist in attempts to have a body with a problematic name and objects obtain incorporation when the benefits in no way matched the effort that had to be expended.

The notion that she never asked Wilson about his plans for Dawesville or that he never mentioned it must be in the category of a remote or fanciful possibility. 

Of course it is possible that Wilson told her nothing and she never asked; but it is not in the least probable.


2. Operations of the Labor Party/ Unions

It is axiomatic that the Labor party is effectively controlled by the Unions.

The :Unions play the game of internal politics on a take no prisoners basis.

If any evidence is needed of this the proceedings of the TURC are replete with examples. 

A brief survey would show the treatment of  K Jackson adverted to in her statement of June 16, 2014 (see paras 193, 224, 271,351, 481) and include the influence peddling and numbers stacking disclosed in the TWU and ETU sessions.

The statement of K Jackson contains some interesting observations on the operations of the Party.


How then does it work in practice.


pastedGraphic_3.png pastedGraphic_4.png  pastedGraphic_5.png

This then was the context in which the political ambitions of Gillard needed to operate to advance her interests.

She needed Union support and she needed money.






What happens when someone no longer plays the game.


There is ample evidence in the proceedings of the RC in support of the points made by Jackson.

In view of this it can be seen that for a politically ambitious person such as Gillard it would have been invaluable to have the support of Wilson and through him Ludwig. 

It would also have been invaluable to have access to a slush fund that promised to deliver a steady stream of money into the foreseeable future.

It must be remembered that the WRA was used not only in relation to the Dawesville channel project but also with Melbourne Water.

It was only the movement to a central funding system by the AWU that put a brake on it. Certainly the proclivity of Theiss to offer funds to Unions did not wane over the ensuing years as evidenced by Eastlink and the Lane Cove payments to the CFMEU.

It is our belief that an obvious motive existed for the involvement by Gillard as a principle in the WRA fraud.

When each transaction is looked at in isolation it may be possible to construct half plausible explanations for her actions.

It is our contention that even these half plausible explanations can be dissolved on close examination.

However when the motive we have identified  in combination with the proposition that she acted as a principle are combined a consistent explanation for  each action individually and in totality is obtained.

The main aspects of the fraud will be examined in the following points against this background.

Hillbilly 33's AWU WRA Inc discussion thread - here

hillbilly33 said...

As many would know, much discussion takes place 'off blog' between those who have established contact and are deeply interested in establishing the truth. Here is one such instance from a person of undoubted intellect and integrity and whose opinion I greatly respect. IMHO, the well-considered thoughts provide a great base for an intelligent debate, and deserve a separate permanently linked thread.

'For purposes of future discussion in 2017, my "single point" is that your entire case turns on Gillard KNOWINGLY assisting in the establishment of an unauthorised association whose reason for being right from the outset was to perpetrate fraud on a grand scale. If Gillard assisted in such a venture, and in such a manner, then I would say H/B is 100 percent correct, and my alternative case collapses completely.

Note, however, that my comment above signals TWO components:
(1) an unauthorised establishment, and
(2) subsequent fraudulent use.
I argue that both components would need to be present in order to conclude Gillard is guilty of criminal activity . For instance, even a wholly above board authorised establishment can subsequently result in the association being used fraudulently in the future. There is nothing inherently "evil" about creating a vehicle that is subsequently used in the commission a crime. On a related note, even if the establishment was indeed unauthorised, this does not, of itself, automatically imply subsequent criminal use. For instance, even if Gillard had wrongfully established the association, IN THEORY Wilson could have simply allowed the vehicle to lie dormant, or have used it for good rather than for evil. In this circumstance, Gillard's wrongdoing would have been restricted to an unauthorised establishment only.'

These thoughts raise several important issues so I hope Michael will oblige with a new, separate thread. Whatever results, I think a truly and demonstrably independent court of law is the proper place to determine the many issues..
So as not to risk 'contaminating' or be seen rightly or wrongly as trying to influence the point of view of others, I'll keep my thoughts to myself until the thread is well-established.

Michael. If you don't feel it is worth a new thread, would you kindly publish where you see fit with my request to all those who have e-mail contact with me and wish to discuss it further to contact me privately.

If the thread is established, I would request that as far as possible, comments be kept on topic and any replies to individual posts address the specific points raised.

BTW. From my point of view, this has nothing to do with whether H/B is correct or not. Like most on Mike's blog I'm seeking to establish the truth and make it public. If we can do that, even if it proves me 100% wrong, I would be satisfied and feel the last five or six years of investigative work has been well and truly justified.
Cheers to all H/B

8 years gaol for forging his wife's signature on a bank loan against the family home

Matthew Perrin was today sentenced to 8 years gaol with a non-parole period of 4 years for forgery and fraud charges arising from a bank loan secured against his family home.

That strikes me as a hefty sentence for a prisoner with no criminal history.  It is a very strong signal to "white collar" crooks and their hangers on - the law takes fraud and forgery offences very seriously.

Mr Perrin's defence team argued (credibly I would say) that at the time of his forgery and fraud he had no intent to permanently deprive the CBA of the money it loaned him.  In any case, his offending boiled down to forging one signature to borrow against the value of his family home.

Now turn your mind to The AWU Scandal.  Calculate the costs of enquiries, investigations, court and royal commission hearings, parliamentary time, destroyed careers, bashings - and still not one cent of the ill-gotten Leighton shareholders money returned.

Those who haven't fessed up yet should - on the Matthew Perrin scale - be looking at very serious gaol time indeed.