AWU: The Question Of Whether Julia Gillard Is Under Criminal Investigation

THE ISSUE of the AWU slush fund scandal — and Julia Gillard’s alleged role in it as a lawyer at Melbourne firm Slater and Gordon in the 1990s — has resurfaced, with 2GB radio host Ben Fordham today stating on the record that the Prime Minister is under investigation. She insists that she isn’t.

This column has been extremely circumspect in its discussion of the AWU scandal and any potential involvement in it by Gillard, and even then our comments have been restricted to material in the public domain.

One reason for this is that the Prime Minister has demonstrated a litigious approach to published material in regard to these matters, and that approach sits on hair-trigger alert.

The other reason — as I made clear when last the scandal boiled over before Christmas — is that it has always been very obvious that the matter has some way to run.

For those readers unfamiliar with my comments at that time, they may be accessed here, here, here and here. I would also encourage anyone revisiting these articles to also read the articles I have linked to, in one or two of them, for additional analysis of the situation as it was publicly left prior to Christmas.

The purpose of my post tonight is not so much to offer new comment as to record today’s events, and to provide direction to where the conversation was left for the benefit of newer readers in particular; it seems clear that this issue is going to burst into the headlines again, and we should be ready to dissect any new material that is presented in that regard.

This latest airing of the AWU matters — and the implicit allegations stemming from them — has been triggered by Sydney radio host Ben Fordham making a public “correction” to something that was said during his interview with the Prime Minister, on air on 2GB, on 7 March 2013.

It turns out that Fordham sought to “correct” something the Prime Minister had said.

As I said at the outset, I intend to remain extremely circumspect in my dealings with any new material involving the AWU scandal and any alleged involvement on Gillard’s part; the last thing I need is a lawsuit from a trigger-happy Prime Minister.

But in posting this, readers will be equipped with everything — in the one spot — for a quick refresher on these matters; it would appear inevitable that we’ll be talking about them more regularly, in the near future, after today’s developments.

This link will enable readers to listen to the Fordham announcement on 2GB today, and includes the relevant excerpt from his interview with the Prime Minister on 7 March.

And this link will take readers to a story on the latest developments from Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, which sets out a reasonably succinct account of these.

At this point, the only comment I am going to make is that the quoted statements of support from Environment minister Tony Burke and former Attorney-General (and odious Gillard attack dog) Nicola Roxon should be disregarded as irrelevant; based, that is, on the assumption that neither of them had anything to do with the circumstances of the AWU scandal and consequently have no first-hand idea what they are talking about.

Beyond that, I note just three things:

1. 2GB announcer Ben Fordham has stated, on air and on the record, that the Prime Minister is under investigation in relation to these matters.

2. The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has emphatically denied that she is the subject of any such investigation.

3. Victoria Police have confirmed they are “investigating a complaint regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds from a union” and have (properly) refused to make any further comment at this juncture.

We will continue to follow this story, and analyse and discuss any new developments. Based on today’s events, it would seem we won’t have all that long to wait.


If you have accessed this article either from a site administered by Benjamin Fulford or from a link to Mr Fulford’s site that has been reposted on another forum, click here.


10 thoughts on “AWU: The Question Of Whether Julia Gillard Is Under Criminal Investigation

  1. Sure! Abbott will be able to keep her company in the courts as he works his way through his slush fund accusations. Did Fordham happen to mention this – I suspect not. I’m waiting for the movie: Two Pollies Battle Their Way Through a Tempest In A Teapot. I hear that their already in negotiations with Spielberg.

    • The difference between Abbott’s case and Gillard’s is that Gillard is a person of interest in a criminal investigation, and Abbott’s case is a civil defamation affair, not a criminal case. This is important because if the AWU investigations result in the successful prosecution of Gillard for a crime resulting in more than 12 months gaol, she is ineligible to hold a seat in parliament, under the Australian Constitution. If Abbott loses his case, there is no implications for being an MP, unless he is made bankrupt.

        • Edward, I’d caution that’s a really odd generalisation to make: some may like Messrs Hadley, Jones, Fordham et al and some may not, but given these men attract audiences the size of the cumulative enrolment of up to a dozen federal electorates — and most of those listeners are voters who are active in terms of their political intentions — it’s probably a bit dangerous to dismiss those radio programmes so easily…

      • Again Mr. Eastwood proposes that the issue is a “tempest in a teapot”. I presume this is meant to suggest that the matter is trivial.
        When a childless, Atheist, Communist, pathological liar of a woman is under investigation by the police for serious white collar fraud it is hardly trivial.
        The allegations.include inter alia “Creation of false documents” under secion 83A of the Crimes Act of Victoria. “In particular this provision of Section 83A states:
        (6) For the purpose of this section, a document is false if it purports-
        (g) to have been made or altered on a date on which, or at a place at
        which, or otherwise in circumstances in which, it was not in fact made
        or altered;”
        On summary conviction this crime carries a penalty of ten years.
        It is certainly not a trivial matter when the horrid beast of a woman happens to be the Prime Minister.
        I take it that this is not the Eastwood famous for “Make My Day”.
        Unfortunate, because in the event that Julia Eilleen Gillard is finally charged, convicted and sentenced for fraudulent behaviour in the AWU* scandal it will certainly make MY day!

  2. “Nicola Roxon should be disregarded as irrelevant; based, that is, on the assumption that neither of them had anything to do with the circumstances of the AWU scandal and consequently have no first-hand idea what they are talking about.”
    There is substantial baloney out there on the ‘net, but Michael Smith has collected considerable detail on this matter. He was after all investigating it at the time when he was with the police.
    His information is that when the AWU effectively fired Slater and Gordon, and Gillard “resigned” from S&G, the case went to Maurice Blackburn to a lawyers none other than Nicola Roxon and Bill Shorten.
    A good part of the government had a role in this one way or the other, including Bob McLelland and Ian McFarlane. There are a fair number by association, such as Joe Ludwig by way of his father Bill. Gillard’s old sidekick at S&G Barnard appointed a Federal judge rounds out the the plum appointments.
    Can this all be coincidence? Is it a coincidence that so many key files have gone “missing”? Anyone gullible enough to believe there is nothing in this stinking mess would be gullible enough to think “global warming” is any more real that Sasquatch.

  3. I understood that Nicola Roxon who was Shorten’s girlfriend at the time, took over Gillard’s AWU files at Maurice Blackburn after Gillard left S&G

    • Hi Joanne (and welcome),

      I have heard that from a couple of places, but admit I don’t know whether it’s true. Even if it is, though, it makes any public defence of Gillard by Roxon even more inappropriate, on account of the fact she shouldn’t be discussing privileged client matters from a previous career to score political points. What do you think?

  4. I think she is guilty! She was Bruce Wilson’s girlfriend accountant for the whole time….
    All the factual documented information can be found at

    • jaaacques, I was going to discard this comment and refuse to publish it, on the basis this isn’t an opportunity to drive traffic to another website about the AWU allegations.

      Instead, I have deleted the site address and opted to publish the comment — with a reply.

      You have obviously posted your comment after the publication of my statement this afternoon, and so you will have seen my remarks about doing additional research to establish the veracity of “a sensationalist publication that, in this case at least, is factually and morally incorrect as well as misleading.”

      Had you done the same (and please take my comments as written — there is no hostility behind them) you would have seen that Mr Fulford really couldn’t care less whether Gillard is innocent or guilty; he has bigger fish to fry, and the allegations against Gillard are probably just too convenient for him to ignore as he presents a cack-brained case that is so incredible as to be beyond belief.

      That said, I think it best to leave the test of innocence or guilt to the Police, and to the Courts if they find there is a case to answer.

      I understand there are those who desperately want to discuss the allegations against Julia Gillard and at the right time, I may do so as well. But be assured that aside from there being allegations at all (ANY allegations, just something to point the finger at) whatever involves Julia Gillard and the AWU is of no consequence to the case presented by Mr Fulford, for which he also republished my article.

      Hence the statement this afternoon.

Comments are closed.