I'd really appreciate your help right now - there's a request at the foot of this post!

The Trade Union Royal Commission's report on the AWU Workplace Reform Association doesn't mention WA's Building and Construction Industry Training Fund (BCITF).

That's a major omission, as the BCITF played a pivotal role in getting the AWU WRA incorporated - and the various versions told by Nick Jukes and others as to its involvement should help shed light on who's telling the truth and who's dicing with perjury as The AWU Scandal starts its journey through the criminal courts.

First we'll hear from Ralph Blewitt.

In May 2013 I published a story on the BCITF.

Ralph sent me an unsolicited note that explained the BCITF had nothing to do with the AWU WRA.  He said the BCITF was never mentioned during his involvement with the AWU WRA Inc at all.  

Ralph was talking about the period up to the first submission of the application for incorporation and its subsequent knock-back as ineligible.

Ralph has separately told us he was not involved in preparing the appeal to the minister arguing the case for incorporation - and that rings true, because it was there that the BCITF made its first appearance in this matter.

Ralph's note to me also went to the police and on 22 May 2013 Victoria Police acknowledged receipt of it from Ralph. 

That early note from Ralph is important because it's a genuine, unprompted recollection, not a later invention to suit a particular scenario.  He sent it before seeing Jukes, Trio or Wilson's evidence on the matter.

Nick Jukes's letter dated 16 March 1992 to The Secretary, AWU Workplace Reform Association doesn't mention the BCITF.  It states the AWU WRA workplace reform representative will liaise with Thiess senior management and site management - not the BCITF.  Nick Jukes described the hours and intended purpose of the AWU WRA Inc, with its very formal address to The Secretary of the (sham) Association, Mr Blewitt.

Here are a few important dates from the time the BCITF first appeared in The AWU Scandal.

On 9 April 1992 Thiess set up supplier code C98112 for the AWU Workplace Reform Association Inc with its secret PO Box 253 Northbridge WA address.

That vendor or supplier code is separate from Thiess supplier code C93732 for the WA Branch of the AWU proper, with its long-standing PO Box 8122 Stirling St Perth address.

On 22 April 1992 Thiess processed the first AWU WRA invoice and on 27 April 1992 issued a cheque made out as follows.

On 23 April 1992 Ralph submitted the Application to Incorporate the AWU WRA Inc.

4 May 1992 - Commonwealth Bank paperwork to set up accounts for the AWU WRA Inc signed and submitted by Blewitt and Wilson

5 May 1992 - $25,272 cheque from Thiess deposited into cash management account.

Some time prior to 13 May 1992, Corporate Affairs wrote to Ralph Blewitt to say that the Association could not be incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act because it was a trade union.   This extract from late 1991 internal legal advice to the Commissioner on another incorporated association sets out the basis for an objection on trade union related grounds.

On 20 May 1992 Thiess date-stamped receipt of invoice no 2 from the Association - paid with cheque 294403 to the AWU WRA at the PO Box 253 Northbridge address.

Thiess allocated the payment to the vendor code C98112 - ie the Association's code.

Thiess then abruptly ceased to use the C98112 vendor code, all future payments to the AWU WRA are coded to the AWU's vendor code.

It was as if Thiess knew the Association's application for incorporation had been knocked back!!!!!

It's worth noting that someone in Thiess had an intimate understanding of what had gone on.

After panicking and closing off the Association's vendor code, Thiess's systems hard coded the legitimate address for the AWU WA Branch onto cheques and payment advice slips.

This extract from the WA Police FOI file shows that someone in Thiess knew where payment for the Workplace Reform Association's 3rd invoice needed to be sent.

Back to the timeline - at the end of May several things happened simultaneously.

The WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner made a finding of ineligibility on the AWU WRA's 23 April 1992 application for incorporation No 1002116 - (recall the 3 corporate affairs numbers correlating with dates the paperwork was submitted explained here).

On 26 May 1992 the AWU WRA application for incorporation was resubmitted to the Office of State Corporate Affairs (2nd submission is allocated number 1002203).

The Act provides that an applicant can appeal the Commissioner's decision to the Minister and can make written submissions to the Minister arguing the case for incorporation.

On 26 May 1992 Ralph Blewitt wrote a cheque for $22 made out to State Corporate Affairs Office - the fee for a review of the Commissioner's decision by the minister.

On 27 May, 1992 Nick Jukes writes to the BCITF for the first time with a "PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR TRAINING SUBSIDY".

This is the first time any reference is made to the BCITF.  Two weeks later Martin Albrecht (MD Thiess) and Michael Forshaw (National Secretary, AWU) execute a Memorandum of Understanding on "Restructuring" at Dawesville.

The submission to the minister arguing the case for incorporation was now able to present the AWU WRA as a tri-partite vehicle with the involvement of the AWU, Thiess and the BCITF.  The submission had letters and the MOU on restructing to support it.

The BCITF and Thiess were included in the submission arguing the case for incorporation to demonstrate that the AWU WRA Inc was not simply an entity of the AWU - rather it was the vehicle through which the AWU, Thiess and the BCITF would achieve their planned workplace reform. Who could argue against that?

Gillard made that submission.  

It would be nice if it was true.

The submission was of course a fabrication - just as the reelection slush fund explanation of the association's purpose given by Gillard was a fabrication.

Gillard later pretended that a forged letter from Ray Neal and a pretend memo to Ralph Blewitt were the mechanisms through which the AWU WRA Inc achieved incorporation.  That too was a lie.

On 30 June 1996 the Sydney Morning Herald published this story, quoting Jukes et al from Thiess:

The "WA Inc" accounts affair - as AWU insiders are calling it - represents a dynamite scandal for a trade union movement facing an aggressive, new, conservative Federal Government and ever-declining membership.

Between 1992 and 1995, about $370,000 flowed through two Perth-based accounts - operated in the name of the "AWU Workplace Reform Association Inc" - which, until last month, had never been heard of in the AWU's national offices in Sydney.

All the money came from the big construction group Thiess Contractors, which says the payments were legitimate, arising from a tripartite agreement between it, the AWU and the West Australian Government.

Indeed, says Thiess, the Government paid it money for an employee training program at a $58 million Thiess construction project and it then paid the AWU. But once in union hands, it seems, the funds went walkabout when the AWU branch in WA was crying poor and running up a debt with head office approaching $1 million.

It's worth noting that as Murray Hogarth's story was being published, Tim Daly and Peter Trebilco of the AWU wrote to Jukes to ask that he explain the amounts that were paid to the AWU WRA. Ian Cambridge had written asking for a similar explanation one year earlier - Jukes completely ignored Cambridge's letter, eventually responding on year late to Bill Ludwig who didn't seem at all worried at the delay.

Here's Juke's reply to Daly/Trebilco:

"To the best of our knowledge" is not a good start given this is Thiess's general manager purporting to describe Thiess accounts!

You can read the whole file for yourself - but Jukes went out of his way to avoid referring to the AWU WRA Inc cost centre, instead fudging by referring to Group 0980 (a project code) as "relating to workplace reform models".

Here is a copy of the Thiess general ledger printout sent to Daly and Trebilco with Jukes's letter - this page is for the AWU WRA Inc vendor code C98112.  Note the top has been cut off, as has the left hand side column, that can only be a purposeful attempt to conceal the true nature of the accounts from Daly and Trebilco.

And here is the same printout as seized by WA Police and released in the WA Police FOI bundle of documents.

Daly and Trebilco were more than ably supported by branch accountant Russell Frearson.  They replied to Jukes with this:

Would you please advise the source of the money provided for (workplace reform) as this union has received advice that the funds were not provided by the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund.

Indeed those funds were not!

Thiess itself was the source of the secret commissions, paid to Wilson et al after Thiess was directly awarded the $57M contract without having to go to tender.

Jukes was not telling the truth then about the BCITF.  Nor is he telling the truth now.  

The inclusion of the BCITF was made at Gillard/Wilson's behest in order to 'argue the case for incorporation'.

The BCITF provided no money to Wilson/Gillard's slush fund.

Thiess needed the AWU WRA Inc incorporated with the AWU's name in it so Thiess executives could plead "we thought we were legitimately paying the AWU" - in an attempt to avoid a secret commissions charge.

Wilson and Ludwig needed the entity incorporated because it already had bank accounts set up and there'd be an awful lot of explaining to do!

Gillard needed the entity incorporated for the same reasons - it was the only way her house renovations would be paid for under the deal she'd cut with Bruce and big Bill.

But Nick Jukes was now publicly committed to a cock and bull story about the tri-partite arrangements and the BCITF.  And he kept on telling it to anyone who'd listen.

Including the police - now in sworn statements.

Nick Jukes's statement to Western Australia Police was made on 16 December, 1997 - it was released by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court in the Wilson legal professional privilege hearing,  you can find it here.

Jukes then swore:

• He negotiated an agreement with Bruce Wilson about Dawesville in late 1991, he recalls it was before he (Jukes) left his WA job in late 1991.
• Contracts with the WA Government were signed in late December 1991 for Dawesville after direct negotiations between Thiess and the WA Government
• In late 1991 he discussed the "workplace reform model" with Wilson seeking the AWU's assistance.
• The "workplace reform model" evolved from the Giles Royal Commission (sadly for Mr Jukes, the Gyles Royal Commission report was not handed down until 26 May, 1992).
• Jukes states that the AWU WRA Inc was set up to "handle the reform agreement" with Thiess and the BCITF.

Juke statements to police are here in full.

Now to that request for your help.

I have a very large range of documents associated with the BCITF - and I seek your assistance in reviewing them.

I'll put them up in a separate post.

Every touch leaves its trace.