The Global Mail has ceased operations.
POLITICS

AWU Affair Is No Schadenfreudegasm

Somewhere about two-thirds of the way through Julia Gillard’s most recent epic press conference early on Monday afternoon, one reporter attempted to ask a question relating to a matter of some substance and relevance.

His subject of interest was sexual and physical abuse within the Australian Defence Force.

Earlier in the day, in response to several hundred plausible allegations of abuse within the Defence Force, detailed in a long report by law firm DLA Piper, Defence Minister Stephen Smith had made a parliamentary apology to all those who had suffered. A taskforce also is being set up to investigate further and oversee compensation to victims. So this is an issue of great significance, not to mention considerable cost to the taxpayers.

<p>Alan Porritt/AAP</p>

Alan Porritt/AAP

Prime Minister Julia Gillard fields questions at Monday's press conference.

But when the chap tentatively tried to raise it with the Prime Minister, others among the gathered media pack looked askance. They were focused instead on an alleged scandal involving Gillard and some dirty doings 20 years ago in the Australian Workers’ Union — the so-called AWU slush fund affair.

Gillard told the bloke who wanted to ask about the Defence Force that she’d come back to his question, but never did. It wasn’t her fault; she ran out of time because the questions about the AWU thing rolled on and on, until she had to run to Question Time in the House.

But that one reporter's question, and the response, shows us something significant. There are lots of issues about right now: the ADF abuse question, the Murray-Darling rescue plan, the government’s response to the Gonski report on education funding, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, proposed new media laws, the list goes on.

The government is doing a lot of stuff. There are relevant questions to be asked about it all. And what is the monotonous focus? Something that really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

Now, it hardly needs saying that we in the media just love a good scandal about impropriety in government, and this writer is no exception.

Oh, how I enjoyed calling for the resignation of the oleaginous Labor powerbroker Graham Richardson in 1992, when he was caught using his influence to try to help his cousin Gregory Symons out of some legal difficulties. (Symons was later jailed for forging government documents relating to a migration scam.) And calling for the resignation of Labor sports minister Ros Kelly, over her behaviour in pork-barreling certain electorates with sports grants funding.

And then, after the fall of the Hawke-Keating government, wading into all the various scandals of the Howard government, which the statistics show was by far the most ethically challenged federal government of the past 40 years.

And I don’t know about you, but I find the inquiry by the Independent Commission Against Corruption into the dealings of Eddie Obeid and the hopelessly compromised former Labor regime in New South Wales to be an utter schadenfreudegasm (to use the wonderful word-invention of The Daily Show’s John Oliver). The most satisfying bit of comeuppance since the Leveson inquiry into phone hacking by the Murdoch media in Britain.

But, for the life of me, I cannot see where the scandal is in the Gillard case.

Twice now she has held media conferences, exhaustively — exhaustingly — answering questions. Twice now, no one has been able to knock a chip off her.

Now, it may well be that young lawyer Julia was more aware than she is letting on about irregularities in the operations of a union slush fund. That’s plausible, if unprovable. But there is no evidence whatsoever that she had any active involvement in any wrongdoing.

There just isn’t.

As she pointed out repeatedly in her press conference, this alleged scandal has been dragged up repeatedly over many years; you have to think the likelihood that any smoking gun will be found now is extremely remote.

And those intent on making a case against her — particularly the Murdoch media and the Opposition, are seeking dirt from increasingly dirty sources.

The most recent and classic example is their reliance on the word of Ralph Blewitt – one of the AWU officials who siphoned money from the fund, who claims — quelle horreur! — that Gillard had witnessed a power of attorney without actually been present.

There is no evidence for this, though, aside from Blewitt’s word. And what sort of a man is he?

To quote Gillard, from her press conference:

“Mr Blewitt is a man who has publicly said he was involved in fraud. Mr Blewitt is a man who has sought immunity from prosecution. Mr Blewitt is a man who has fled Indonesia to avoid a police interview in relation to land fraud, although he denies wrong doing in the case. Mr Blewitt says he owes money on another Asian land deal. Mr Blewitt admits to using the services of prostitutes in Asia. Mr Blewitt has published lewd and degrading comments and accompanying photographs of young women on his Facebook page. Mr Blewitt, according to people who know him, has been described as a complete imbecile, an idiot, a stooge, a sexist pig, a liar and his sister has said he's a crook and rotten to his core.

“His word against mine — make your mind up.”

Now, I might be wrong, but I think the fair and balanced parts of the Australian media have just about made their minds up: there is no scandal here.

So only two questions really remain. One: how much longer will the partisan media keep on flogging this dead horse?

Two: How much longer will the Opposition keep on flogging it?

In Monday’s Question Time, the Opposition devoted every single question to it.

Deputy leader Julia Bishop was the prosecutor; the Liberal Party has clearly decided leader Tony Abbott, already fighting perceptions of sexism and aggressive negativity, should not sully himself with this particular bucket of dirt.

In response, Gillard was for the most part far less feisty than she had been in the preceding media conference, explaining herself as if to a dull-witted child.

And Bishop’s questions all went nowhere.

Meanwhile, Abbott was a spectator.

At the end, she leaned into the microphone, to inform those Australians who might be listening on the radio: “I confirm that the leader of the Opposition was present at Question Time today.”

A smile.

57 comments on this story
by Kevin Dyke

Of course, Mike you have shown your total bias against the Coalition in your appearances on "Insiders" I can practically feel that smirk of yours leaping out of the rubbish you have written above !!

November 26, 2012 @ 8:07pm
by Joe Magill

so why are all the journos writing about her, interviewing Blewitt, talking around in circles? Seems both you and Bernard Keane are the only journalists prepared to say enough is too much.

November 26, 2012 @ 8:47pm
by maria

she said all!!!

November 26, 2012 @ 9:37pm
by Markie Linhart

And a big fat full stop.

November 26, 2012 @ 11:07pm
by critical mass

This woman is amazing. Her toughness and tenacity in the midst of all this sh*t flinging is admirable enough, but the fact that she also gets on with the job of governing the country as well is bloody impressive.

November 26, 2012 @ 11:07pm
by rhm

Joe asks why the media keeps on following this story. Simple really, nobody want to be the outlet that gives up on the yarn just in case even though anyone with half a brain knows its a fizzer ... they will never live it down. The really sad thing is the influence The Australian has, for a newspaper that is not read by very many people it seems to be able to set the agenda, sadly at the ABC more than anywhere.

November 26, 2012 @ 11:50pm
by Bryan Law

Perhaps Mike your difficulty lies in looking for the scandal as distinct from examining the culture. I doubt Gillard did anything illegal. I do think she was involved in the kind of clever-boots shonky "slush fund" games that were an integral part of Labor politics during the eighties and nineties in Australia, and that she was sensitive enough to its borderline propriety that she kept schtumm about the matter in her dealings with the law firm that employed her.

As for the relevance today, why doesn't Gillard simply renounce her earlier error of judgement, point out the corrective measures now taken by her Party and her government, and hold out a vision of more integrity in future politics. Instead, from my perspective she is resolute in stone-walling, and vicious in counter-attack. Why she spent so long today vilifying a has-been hack is beyond me. When Gillard clung to power two years ago she promised to improve the conduct of politics in this country - a promise she appears unable to understand let alone keep.

November 27, 2012 @ 12:32am
by Alan - Gold Coast

Th whole point of the affair is to keep the lazy media focuscing on a "make believe story": and not important events and the lack of policy by the LNP. It has beena highly successful strategy. Listening to some of the questions yesterday I realised that most of the reporters were actually really stupid people as they asked questions about things that had already been answered.

November 27, 2012 @ 8:26am
by DP

Most Gutsy PM ever and she is female. Then on the other side for balance we have Ms Bishop ( female) taking the lowest of stances . Showing No interest in Foreign Affairs or what is best and important for this country. Does Ms Bishop want Australia to become like when America was ridiculed about its lack of interest in Foreign Affairs ?

I'm not sure the Liberal party are working *for* us anymore. Or doing politics in the best interest of the country. I'm not sure I would TRUST what the Opposition may oneday find on AWU Or Ms Gillard anyway!

November 27, 2012 @ 9:01am
by R Anderson - Bris

The point is... Is our PM a respectable, credible leader, or is she lacking ethics and morals?
To even be considered in such a state of questionable ehtics is enough for me to confirm that she is not worthy of holding the top job in the Country.
Is our nation's self-respect so low that we complacently accept this? Our leaders should hold themselves to much higher standards than this... we shouldn't have to teach them!

November 27, 2012 @ 9:22am
by Ian Hart

To echo R Anderson–Bris: Is our Leader of the Opposition a respectable, credible leader or is he lacking ethics and morals? ... etc (I won't flog the dead horse any more). The press had a field day with Tony Abbott's undergraduate behaviour for a while then dropped it once they had flogged it to death. If they'd show the same restraint here maybe we could get back to the serious questions such as Amnesty International's report on Nauru.

November 27, 2012 @ 10:06am
by rhonaj

R. Anderson Julia Gillard is NOT GUILTY of any misconduct - WHY ? - NO EVIDENCE.

November 27, 2012 @ 11:05am
by David R

The ABC have spent way too much time reporting this non-story. Unfortunately the national broadcaster is more interested in echoing News Ltd than in doing independent and original reporting.

November 27, 2012 @ 11:28am
by Rolly

Australian politics, much like our sporting culture, is comprised mainly of persons of cyclops-like mentality - one-eyed in the extreme and prepared to defend their limited visionary capabilities with avid partisan aggressiveness.
"My mind is made up - please don't confuse me with facts" appears to be the prevailing standpoint.

November 27, 2012 @ 11:47am
by Val Bainbridge

Thank god for Mike Seccombe

November 27, 2012 @ 12:28pm
by Robert D

Rolly, I think that would be a fair assessment of any country that strives towards some form of pluralism.

Ideologically-driven people are often times unlikely to change their minds on an issue when their 'side' has a list of agreed-upon facts. I suppose, to harken back to an old Leninist-Marxist slogan, you could call it 'correct-line thinking' - something that is at play on all sides of politics.

There was an interesting piece in the New Yorker some time back, that was worth a read, regarding studies of people in the United States, identifying exclusively as either 'Republican' or 'Democrat', and how they interpreted information according to their political hues (said article also discussed a narrower issue in-depth - the political football that is the healthcare debate):

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein

Regards,
Robert.

November 27, 2012 @ 1:00pm
by Tinman_au

Have we actually gotten to the stage where News Ltd is actually working against democracy by not reporting/pursuing/investigating important policies?

We're getting pretty close I think, if not actually there. While I believe politicians should have a "thick skin", I think it's also to the stage where the PM should be thinking of suing if they don't actually start coming up with some evidence...

November 27, 2012 @ 1:02pm
by Janet Smpson

Ditto - glad you're back, Mike.

November 27, 2012 @ 1:11pm
by Yowie

This AWU shenanigans to Gillard is much like the birth certificate shenanigans to Obama - no evidence and no case to answer, but a really good media beat up to keep the (conservative) party relevant in the media since they've got nothing of substance to offer as an alternative.

November 27, 2012 @ 1:16pm
by Marcus Finch

I agree
I want to hear about the Murray Darling, I want to hear about the "hide the pedophile" horror within the Catholic Bishopery (sic). I want to hear about about how the ADF will sort their workplace out and I want to hear an actual policy from the opposition.
And I want Malcolm to lead said opposition, sigh........

November 27, 2012 @ 1:28pm
by George Michaelson

I have always believe Schadenfreude has a quality of "there, but for the grace of god, go I".

-So are you in fact saying that placed in Eddie Obeid's situation, you too might have fallen into behaviour which doesn't meet public approval?

November 27, 2012 @ 1:34pm
by Andy Fitzharry

Yes, the real crime Gillard might be accused of is how she managed to be a member of the Socialist Left yet also managed to spend so much time in relationships with rightwingers.

Clearly, her actions, like those of her fellow Comrade from the SL, who managed to morph so easily into a neo-liberal suit once a minister, one LIndsay Tanner, leave her exposed to questions concerning her lack of a clear political ideology beyond being in power.

Her reliance on the Shoppos, that squad of Vatican Storm Troopers, and her new chum from Australia's Worst Union, Shorten, simply demonstrates how far to the Right Gillard has dragged herself, and the now rather mangy ALP.

(Who would ever have thought Rudd was engaging in anything more than sour grapes when he warned of those who would take the ALP to the right?).

But such views could never be attempted by the Canberra press crew of today because it's odds on they have absolutely no grasp of history, or research, or analysis, preferring instead to absorb all from NewsCorp as if it were Gospel, and confirm it with commercial radio and TV shows of such a compelling nature as 'Sunrise'.

November 27, 2012 @ 1:36pm
by Randy Rose

You write 'But, for the life of me, I cannot see where the scandal is in the Gillard case.' How come then there are enough journalists out there who do and persist with detailed questions and pages in newspapers are devoted to it. Perhaps you should 'try harder?'

November 27, 2012 @ 1:40pm
by Ben G Morgan

It's all symptomatic of 'bureaucracy, not democracy'. The fact that we have a whole press conference (and countless pages and news reports) devoted to questions about papers, documents, procedures, bank statements, and 'elected union officials', says something about the state of our politics.

I watched the whole thing live, and I too was disappointed that there was no time to return to the Defence Force question (which was specifically about the poor, or perhaps strategic, timing of the earlier apology from Smith). Or anything else for that matter.

By all means, call the characters of our gov. reps into question; they should constantly be questioned, and held up to the same standards we expect of ourselves and each other. But there are just so many more important questions to be asked, issues to be debated, and consensuses to be reached.

One woman, one man, does not make a party, does not make a country. We are all fallible, our ability to be anything else comes only from collectively doing good.

Imagine if our all politicians had respect for each other and themselves. Imagine a democracy...

November 27, 2012 @ 1:57pm
by jill korevaar

To repeat a comment I heard on ABC 702 today, I think the Speaker should not entertain questions which do not relate to the Prime Minister's performance of her duties in her present capacity, rather than vague accusations from the distant past. Somebody has to be able to put an end to this charade.

November 27, 2012 @ 2:17pm
by bedlambay

As J Biggins said on Q&A the Opposition and News Ltd is no different fronm the US birthers. Also the hard right hounded the Clintons over Whitewater for years. Ditto for Keating and his piggery and Whitlam and Sangster. Abbott, Snedden and co have never accepted the progressives as legitimate.

November 27, 2012 @ 2:46pm
by matt

Has anyone noticed how much this looks like a 'whitewater' line of attack? One out of the Republican playbook me thinks. And the only reason it's getting more coverage is that the opposition have less material to otherwise work with.

November 27, 2012 @ 3:04pm
by Elizabeth Ashby

Ralph Blewitt will be Abbott's Godwin Grech.

November 27, 2012 @ 3:45pm
by Allan

Mike is quite correct. The scandal is the bigger issues being ignored while the Opposition cannot rise above smear.

November 27, 2012 @ 3:59pm
by K.D. Afford

I heard on The Science show regarding Climate Change "the more educated the Republicans (Read Liberals)) become the more they reject the science, conversely with the Democrats, the more educated they become the more likely they are to accept science." It is called Ideology! The Liberals are today pleading for us to vote for them for reasons of being ( in their minds) a good party. For one I will not as they cannot get out of the gutter and stop muck raking. I have yet to hear the words "Climate Change" and "problem" uttered by those at the top - Abbott, Hockey, Bishop,Payne - as all they want to do is to sink the current prime minister.
For mine she has them on the back foot, and I have never voted Labor - yet. I am 69.

November 27, 2012 @ 4:49pm
by nick

Abbott & the Libs still cannot get over they lost the election....
Abbott's bruised ego is clouding his already questionable judgement.
And the mainstream media is just loving all this minimum work for maximum exposure journalism.

November 27, 2012 @ 5:02pm
by Neville (Carnegie)

Don't agree with your reasoning about Abbott not running this matter. It is a question of knowledge of legal practices which Julie knows from her days at Clayton Utz. Tony could make an error that allowed Labor to kick him. I don't think they will be able to claim that Julie doesn't know her profession.
More interested in whether the journalists who started this matter running were present at the 2nd news conference. Julia could fool some of the other journos who lack legal knowledge of the practices followed with clients.

November 27, 2012 @ 5:05pm
by Marc

Sorry Mike - you've been sucked in by all the obfuscation too.

November 27, 2012 @ 5:17pm
by Norman

Given Mr Seccombe's pro-Labor record, I wouldn't have expected anything but the one-eyed blather herein. This guy is so predictable. His lefty bias gives him no credibility whatsoever and his contributions to this site only serve to sully what otherwise is usually a collection of very worthwhile ‘stuff.’ I had vowed not to read Seccombe again but I do, sometimes, but only for wry amusement. He always reminds me of what Ronald Reagan said to his opponent during a presidential debate: 'There you go again" A smile.

November 27, 2012 @ 5:23pm
by Paddy Byers

It's not just the Opposition out to get Julia Gillard.
Who and what is driving them?

November 27, 2012 @ 5:39pm
by Paul

Enough; there isn't any smoking gun. But the opposition in lieu of any semblance of a policy on anything, just keeps muck raking. The liberal party have never ever been able to accept defeat.; they were born to rule after all.

When Whitlam won in 1972 they spent the next three years solely attempting to bring a legitimate government down. Admittedly they were helped along by inexperienced and niave government ministers after 23 years in opposition. Things are no different now, the independants have told us how desperate Abbott was for power and again the Libs have shown that they will do and say anything to be rid of this government and take power. To the point of accusing the PM of breaking the law without a semblance of proof; mud sticks.

November 27, 2012 @ 5:58pm
by George

What a waste of time and energy that is distracting the Prime Minister from running the country, the press and opposition should be ashamed. But I guess as long as they pursue this silly distraction the less pressure on the government to answer questions of significance, which makes for easy government that doesn't require accountability to public scrutiny .

November 27, 2012 @ 6:53pm
by Peg Whittington

Thanks Mike for the sensible article. Apart from all the important issues you raise, It is boring!

November 27, 2012 @ 7:39pm
by HK Whitton

@Marc - to suggest that Mike Seccombe has been sucked in by 'obfuscation' - your word - is to suggest that somewhere there is a truth being hidden.

Yet is it widely attested that not a grain of truth has emerged, despite the frenzied (and increasingly ill-judged) efforts of Her Majesty's loyal. All we hear from from the de facto leader, Ms Bishop (Mr Abbott having fallen silent of late), is the sound of a long-dead horse getting another flogging.

No hidden truth, no obfuscation, Marc. You'll need to do better than that cheap shot.

November 27, 2012 @ 7:52pm
by Victor

perhaps you should have watched and listen to Janet Albrechtsen's analogy on Q&A, she identified the problem in such a joyous way of engaging Tony Jones as her boyfriend, and it does relate to why the PM should make a statement to Parliament. She was 'attached' to some dodgy, brother, comrades. It also raises the questions over the conduct of the unions in regard to its members. At least Blewitt, has said he is sorry to AWU members. BTW notice how quiet Paul Howes is over this issue.

November 27, 2012 @ 9:00pm
by Ann Noyd

Oh but isn't it delicious to hear about all the sleazy people our PM has been associated with over the years. Imagine, Bruce Wilson might have become the First Bloke. Is she the best we can do? If so this country surely will go to the dogs.

November 27, 2012 @ 9:10pm
by mandy

Think what you like of her parties policies - she is certainly no poster child for dumb ozzies.

November 27, 2012 @ 9:36pm
by Marcus

Neville, you don't have to know a great deal about the law to know that this "scandal" has been all smoke & no fire. The real scandal in this is that Bishop is quite happy to hang out with a bloke who is allegedly wanted in Asia for *two* cases of land fraud, & who was apparently running sex-tourism operations whilst he was out of the Country. The question must also be asked-who is paying his costs, & why?

November 27, 2012 @ 10:09pm
by colroe

Ask yourself, why did she hold a press conference outside the House, was it because she may have been reluctant to lie in the House? I also believe that for a leader of this nation to describe a person in the way she described Blewitt (despite his failings, and in no way acknowledging she is also a confirmed liar) lacks integrity and is not appropriate for the Prime Ministerial position. In addition to try to cloak herself in the use of John Howards name smacks of a double standard.

November 27, 2012 @ 10:42pm
by Monty

The ABC 7: 30 report this evening sums it up very nicely ( not in print form ) in real live terms . Tony Abbott giving the "Troops " the final team talk for the year "We'll we've lost this one but we will come up with something else in the New Year ".........as the camera pans to a wry smile on Malcolm Turnbull's face. A classic for U Tube .

November 27, 2012 @ 11:14pm
by sherry stumm

I wrote to The Hon Deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop asking her not to waste valuable parliamentary time asking questions about an issue where no allegations have been made, just disgusting innuendo and smear. I object as a voter and tax payer that money is wasted on this woman if she cannot do her job which is looking at Labor policy and making sure that it is right for the nation. Honestly Liberal/National politicians seem to be really out of step with voters if they think this "dirt file" on Julia Gillard is of ongoing interest.

November 28, 2012 @ 10:40am
by George

"But there is no evidence whatsoever that she had any active involvement in any wrongdoing." The democracy is not concerned in whether something is illegal or not, only that she was involved.

November 28, 2012 @ 11:58am
by Susan Thorman

Thanks for your article. it is an absolute relief to have media coverage that clearly states that this is "not a story". I agree with Sherry above that the opposition's waste of question time is a national disgrace. Thank you Mike Seccombe for pointing to any number of very important national issues that the media and the opposition are completely ignoring while the focus remains brain-dead and compulsively locked on this "not a story".

November 28, 2012 @ 3:28pm
by MikeA

I like to think I take my politics seriously, but must admit I love to read of a good scandal. But I can't find a single interesting aspect of the AWU/Gillard story (or the Petraus scandal, even though it includes that usual winning ingredient 'sex). Media (other than the ABC) is meant to be about rating and sales, can't believe the attention being spent on this story

November 28, 2012 @ 3:36pm
by Barry

Colroe @10:22pm. 27 Nov.
She didn't describe Blewitt, she quoted what others have called him. As for her being a confirmed liar, please mention a lie she's ever told. bet you can't. And please don't say the Carbon price since we all know it was a broken promise not a lie.

November 28, 2012 @ 7:30pm
by patterson

What a shame on the writer of this article: firtsly, Gillard was A LAWYER AND now a PM. AS a lawyer the kind of allegations would have had the people sued by the very LAWYER PM. BUT she did not. THEN she was shown the door at S&G after an INTERVIEW because of something very serious that took place at the LAW firm. GILLARD did not sue the firm for unfair dissmisal or something similar. she just accepted it. Yes , you right that there are important things to do but just as important we need to know that the people who are doing this important things are also clear of any past issues and in this case it has come up recently with documents to show with signatures as well. JUST for YOUR information mike seccombe, this very governmemt that you think is so good as actually mismanaged the budget with COST BLOW OUT of BILLIONS of dollars after BILLIONS of dollars and also they think that taking the super pure $70 Billlion of surplus and dramatically turned it to just over $500Billlion . And you think that they are doing a good job. And yes ,Mike the PM has never answered a simple question yet and she plays in parliament like a liitle child when she somehow brings Tony Abbott into any answer. she had the audacity to even say that Tony Abbot was present in parliament and that he did not say anything and she meant that to be a degrading joke.... what a shameful government leads us and how shameful of you to actually promote this governmnet

November 28, 2012 @ 9:21pm
by leon

wow @ patterson not a single correct fact in your comments, how did you manage that?

November 29, 2012 @ 4:26pm
by Kathy

That fella Patterson is a dill, and his spelling and punctuation are atrocious as well.

December 1, 2012 @ 6:10pm
by Reinhold

Seems to me we have an argument in parliament between used- to- be lawyers, now comfortable on the public purse and now privileged to make accusations and insinuations that they would never get away with in an open court. Not in the public's interest mind you, but a brawl to gain control. I'm one of those peanuts who have followed this soap opera (I'm ashamed to say) and like most soap operas that have gone on too long, they usually have to have car crash. or kill off a character. In this scenario though, the victims are the voters, the people, who have been written out of the script.

December 2, 2012 @ 2:22am
Show previous 54 comments
by angels

I totally agree with you ; and it clarifies the story from a very rational, analytic viewpoint. BUT what you're doing still continues the focus! It's a bind isn't it. And Tony is its best exponent.

December 3, 2012 @ 5:24pm
by David Poynter

I did nothing wrong ---- except
- I acted in a legal sense for my boyfriend, when good sense and ethics meant he should have been represented by someone less emotionally attached,
-I failed to set up a file (standard practice is to set up a file), thus leaving other parters in my firm in the dark (ultimeately causing loss of AWU as a client),
-I set up an 'association' in W.A. with only 2 signatories when union rules stipulated 5 (5 as a means to avoid possible corruption),
- I included 'AWU' in title of said 'association' but claimed it was not a union but was for work place reform, knowing full well that 'association' was in reality a slush fund, and thus a vehicle to extort monies from construction firm,
- I failed to inform my firm that an association still existed in WA at exit interview, thus causing loss to AWU of more monies,
---- I did nothing wrong!!!!

December 10, 2012 @ 9:47am
by S McCann

At the end of the day David, you proved nothing! AWU in a title can mean anything you say it means. Then you go on to say "she knew" So now you are a mind reader? Enough of this absolute bulls--t! She did nothing wrong, as you say, or you and your cronies would have been able to prove it, but you simply failed to do so. Annoying, isn't it?

January 26, 2014 @ 9:58am
CLOSE
Type a keyword to search for a story or journalist

Journalists

Stories