Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
August 14th 2016 print

Peter O'Brien

Of Pell and Gillard

Compare and contrast the treatment accorded the Cardinal and an ex-PM. The former is smeared, slandered, leaked against and said by Victoria Police to be the subject of an ongoing investigation. Gillard, however, sails serenely on, apparently untroubled by investigators' questions

bruce and juliaA couple of months ago I wondered why so little progress appears to have been made in concluding the case against Ralph Blewitt et al in the matter of the AWU Workplace Reform Association scam, so I wrote to the Victorian Police Commissioner and requested an update. I received a reply from Commissioner Graham Ashton, who advised  that the matter remains part of the ongoing operations of Taskforce Heracles. He refused refused comment.

While that bland reply to a matter in which Julia Gillard figures prominently was no more than I expected, Ashton’s discretion contrasted markedly with what appears to his department’s leaks and collaborations with the ABC in the ongoing persecution of Cardinal George Pell.

Well, the reason this matters is that the AWU Workplace Reform scandal is more more than a piece of fluff and political ephemera to be forgotten as soon as something more exciting comes along.  It involved a former prime minister who caused untold damage to our country and has now retired to enjoy an affluence undreamed of by the Australians who will  struggle for years to pay off the debt she and her minions inflicted upon all of us. More than that, two journalists, Michael Smith and Glen Milne, lost jobs in their pursuit of this story, their efforts providing a hard cudgel with which the then-Opposition bludgeoned PM Gillard. The current government owes it to those men to pursue this matter to the end.

One can learn little from the the Left on almost any topic, but it must be acknowledged that so-called progressives have  long memories and a tendency, more often than not vicious, to pursue enemies to the grave and beyond.  Sir John Kerr, for example, who saved us from a government perhaps even more disastrous than that of Rudd and Gillard, has been cast as a figure of infamy in the histories of left-wing writers and fulminating zealots. One shrinks from descending to such levels of eternal spite, but in Gillard’s case there is more to it than that. Without a similar effort from conservatives, Gillard will sail serenely into history, her escutcheon burnished by the admirers’ accolades that frame her place in history: our first female Prime Minister, valiant scourge of misogynists, victim of the patriarchy etc. Unless the AWU scandal is explored and the cards allowed to fall free and where they may, truth stands to be the last casualty of the affair, just as vast sums of union members’ money were the first. The Left’s standard dismissal — ‘It all happened so long ago, why bother?’ — will not wash and should not be allowed to stand.

When Blewitt announced he intended to plead ‘not guilty’ and would subpoena Ms Gillard as a witness it must have been clear to all sentient creatures (a category that includes Victoria Police brass, or so one would hope) that he would not be calling her as a character reference.  In 2012 she had denounced him as an “imbecile and a sexist pig”.  So he could only have believed her evidence would in same way exonerate him or at least ameliorate his guilt. Either that, or he was determined not to go down without taking everyone with him. It is curious that in the more than 12 months that have elapsed, police appear not have interviewed Bruce Wilson, the man at the centre of it all. If the delay in laying charges against Blewitt is because of the need to gather further evidence, one would have thought Wilson’s input would be among the first steps.

Below is the text of a letter I sent to the Attorney General Senator Brandis shortly before the recent election:

Dear Senator Brandis,

No doubt you are very busy campaigning, so I apologise for bringing up this matter at this time.

Back during the tumultuous years of the disastrous Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments, the Opposition prosecuted a strong case against then Prime Minister Julia Gillard over her association with the AWU Workplace Reform Association scam.  At the time, PM Gillard was not able, or willing, to give a convincing account of her behaviour in this matter.  As a result, and as promised in his election campaign, the incoming Prime Minister Tony Abbott established the Trade Union Royal Commission, which was specifically tasked, inter alia, to investigate the  case.  There was a clear implication that the government believed Ms Gillard had a case to answer.

In the event, the Commission cleared Ms Gillard of criminal wrongdoing but criticized her professional conduct.  It also recommended that police proceed against the operators of the scam, Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt.

At that time the police had, at their disposal, the results of exhaustive investigations carried out by journalists such as Michael Smith and Hedley Thomas, information from their own investigation (the start of which preceded the TURC recommendation) and Blewitt’s own confession.

On 28th April 2015, The Australian newspaper reported that Victoria Police had informed Ralph Blewitt he would ‘very soon be criminally charged’.  Blewitt was reported to have responded that he would defend the charges and would be calling witnesses, including Ms Gillard.

Since then, nothing has been heard on this matter.  Over twelve months does not seem ‘very soon’ to me.

The impression is growing that Vic Police are now ‘running dead’ on this issue, possibly to protect former PM Gillard from a potentially embarrassing court appearance. I wrote to the Commissioner of the Victorian Police seeking advice as to progress on this case and was informed that the investigation conducted by Taskforce Heracles into all referrals from the Royal Commission was ongoing and involved both Vic Police and the AFP.

Many matters investigated by the Royal Commission were relatively new in the public arena and it is understandable that police investigations, which necessarily must be thorough, can take time.  But in relation to the AWU Workplace Reform Association scam, it is hard to believe that there is very much more to be discovered than had already been revealed by various sources.  This would seem to be borne out by the Vic Police statement in April 2015 that Blewitt would very soon be charged.

I realise that a Government Minister cannot direct police outcomes or procedures but, presumably, he can demand, in this case of the AFP, that matters that were of such concern to the Government when it was in Opposition should be treated expeditiously and that justice, so long denied, should not be delayed further.

I imagine that, as the responsible Minister, you would be able to pose questions that go to the efficiency and efficacy with which police expend the public funds entrusted to them.  You might for example ask the following questions which I, unsuccessfully, asked of the Victorian Police Commissioner:

  • Are charges still imminent against Blewitt and, if so, when are they likely to be laid?
  • Has Mr Bruce Wilson been interviewed in relation to this matter?
  • Are charges contemplated against Wilson and, if so, when are they likely to be laid?
  • Has anyone else been interviewed in the past 12 months in relation to this matter?

In my view there are questions that Ms Gillard has not yet answered, precisely because she was not asked them by the Royal Commission.  These relate to her action, or rather apparent inaction, when she and her employer, Slater & Gordon, became aware that the AWU Workplace Reform Association had been used as a vehicle to defraud their client, the AWU.

There is a tendency in public debate for today’s scandal to be quickly forgotten once tomorrow’s has taken hold in the media.  I seek your assurance that the government is still determined to see this matter through, particularly given the amount expended on it.

Sincerely,
Peter O’Brien

Nothing heard, at this stage, from Senator Brandis.

There is no chance the left-leaning and union-beholden government of Victoria is ever going to ask these questions of Commissioner Ashton, who, as it happens, was appointed to his position by that same government in July, 2015.  Compare and contrast the treatment accorded George Pell and Julia Gillard. First came the leak, amplified immediately by the ABC, that the cardinal was under investigation. This was followed most recently by Ashton’s comment after 7.30 aired the accusations of two convicted bash artists, each with a history of substance abuse, that Pell somehow managed to molest them as small children in a crowded swimming pool. In that latter instance, Ashton referred to the accusers as “victims” — not as ‘purported victims’, ‘alleged victims’, ‘self-proclaimed victims’ or any other combination of words intended to suggest that clouds of doubt hang over such ridiculously dubious assertions.

All this places the ball most definitely in the lap of Brandis, who might also do well to remember that Blewitt is getting on in years, has been a habitual smoker and, as any acturial table would suggest. Were he to die Bruce Wilson would be the only surviving player, and he has made it clear he will never implicate his former sweetheart.

Gillard may be entirely blameless, as she claims, but unless she addresses the outstanding questions — and is actively encouraged to do so by a government that pledged  no less — time and sympathisers’ accounts will shape the narrative of history. The union members robbed blind by her bedmate deserve better than that.

 

 

 

Comments [14]

  1. ianl says:

    Peter

    Of course the Vic ALP Govt is waiting for Blewitt to die, or at least become irretrievably unable to attend Court with competence.

    Brandis has very little to do with it. It’s a Victorian issue. However, it became clear that various law officials, including it seems on superficial examination a judicial member of the Vic Supreme Court, consider that involving a former Prime Minister in a cross-examination that would likely become very sordid is not in the best interests of the nation.

    A much more famous example of this noble cause corruption occurred with Nixon. When he finally resigned, having conveniently taped his crimes for posterity, the first act of his successor after being sworn in was to pardon him of all crimes that had been committed during incumbency. This pardon was specifically to avoid exactly such a sordid trial.

    I’m not defending the situation. Rather pointing out that any hope of movement is truly delusional; of course, you are completely entitled to that delusion.

    • Peter OBrien says:

      Ian,

      it’s not just a Victorian matter. It’s a recommendation from a Royal Commission established by the Commonwealth Government and that government, in the person of Attorney General Brandis, has an obligation to ensure the matter is brought to a satisfactory conclusion. If they are reluctant to do it (and I have no doubt that, having milked the scandal for what it was worth while Gillard was in office, most of them would rather it now just fade away) then it is up to us to goad them. There is too much of a comfortable closed shop mentality amongst our political representatives.

      I may be delusional but the idea that the best interests of the nation are protected by letting someone off the hook just because they managed to climb to the top of the greasy pole does not sit well with me and your attitude is symptomatic of why conservatives are slowly but surely losing the debate. We should all be jumping up and down and demanding the answers that I’m seeking.

      • ianl says:

        > ” … your attitude is symptomatic of why conservatives are slowly but surely losing the debate …”

        Rubbish. The “debate” was lost over twenty years ago when post-modern journalism became normal. If the MSM does not clamour for it, a majority of the general population will not either.

        You will notice that my initial comment pointed out that I do not defend the situation, but I do recognise the fact of it. Most Royal Commission recommendations are ignored by Govts. We, the hoi-polloi, have no real power to insist otherwise, particularly if both major parties quietly agree on something.

    • nfw says:

      You are of course, correct, nothing will happen. However when you say “in the best interest of the nation” what you really mean is in the best interests of the legal-political ruling class/elites. What would be in the best interest of the nation is to have the ex-PM in court trying to have her tell the truth. Given her performances when she was in Parliament that would be a chore. It’s amazing how she could slag off Tony Abbott under parliamentary privilege (a right not designed for that purpose) but wouldn’t say anything in the House about her time with the AWU chaps. I wonder if the fear of being caught out telling porkies to Parliament might have crossed her mind, whereas saying certain things outside might have resulted in civil action? Gutless either way.

      As for Parliament doing things not in the best interests of the nation look how they connived to handle Craig Credit Card Thomson. He received an slap on the wrists during a session set-up by both sides on Budget Eve so it was hidden amongst the Budget conjecture and hyperbowl (a tribute to Ms Gillard there). What they did that night was only in their best interests, neither ours as the owners of this country nor the union members’ moneys he used for personal gain.

      • ianl says:

        Sorry, but my comment on “the best interests of the nation” was a sardonic summary of the view of the self-described elite, not a summary of my view. It is almost impossible to describe the depth of my contempt for the Slick Willies of the politico-legal world …

        As an aside, although with some relevance, the true lesson our bureaucrats and politicians learned from Brexit was never, ever to ask the hoi-polloi a question like that.

  2. pgang says:

    As they used to say, “You can’t kill a king.” No public servant will ever dare to seriously pursue the matter.

  3. Eeyore says:

    There is little chance of Gillard exercising any member of the judiciary’s judgment beyond what has been faced. Her political first will ensure that.

    It is the stuff of nightmares to consider enduring further her voice and intonation, I was thrilled to see the back of her and can happily exist without hearing from that vile machiavellian ever again.

  4. ArthurB says:

    There are three reasons why Julia will never be prosecuted (i) she is female (ii) she is a member of the Labor party (iii) Comrade Dan will resist any attempt at bringing her to trial

    • Peter OBrien says:

      I am not advocating that Gillard be prosecuted (at least not yet). I am advocating that Blewitt be charged as promised by Vic Police. Then, if he does subpoena Gillard she’ll have to front up and answer questions in court. That is the whole point of my essay – that unnamed forces are deliberately running dead on this issue in the hope that Blewitt will, sooner rather than later, also be dead.

      I don’t see why they should be allowed to get away with this without conservatives at least making a stink.

      • Eeyore says:

        Your point was not missed Peter, I just do not have sufficient faith in our politicians that it will happen.

        Where is the mileage in it? She is a spent force.

        Emily Listers going bonkers would be amusing I grant you but it would decimate conservative politics as the “sista’s” rush to defend their own.

        Pell, on the other hand, offers no such risk, the best one can hope for is a dead bat on behalf of political conservatives.

        No, that smug, god awful woman will swan off with her pension to parade her virtue elsewhere and for mine, we can at least be thankful that we will hear little of her.

  5. colroe says:

    The fact that the Victorian Police can continue to stonewall on this is of major concern. Where is the “justice” focus and impartiality of the police? Are they not embarrased by their failure to act, or are they satisfied with being political minions?