Anda di halaman 1dari 14


David McAlpine

Dear Prime Minister, Senators, Attorney General et al,

I am writing to you to voice my concern over the lack of action in regards to the Australian
Workers Union Workplace Reform Association (AWU-WRA) saga that has been going on for
many years resulting in a number of senior Political, Union and Corporate persons appearing
before the Trade Union Royal Commission (TURC) where it was clearly shown that they lied
under Oath during those proceedings, or ultimately lied to me as lead Police Investigator
during the initial investigation.

In 2016, I retired from the WA Police Force after 42 years of service.

Whilst a serving Officer, during the time of the TURC I was never spoken to or contacted by
either Victorian Fraud Squad or Investigators from the Royal Commission.

I was first contacted after I retired by Michael Smith, a freelance journalist and former radio
broadcaster from Sydney. He asked me if I would speak to him about my knowledge and
involvement as lead Investigator of this inquiry as far back as the middle 90’s.

In 2018, when Michael Smith approached me in Thailand, we sat down and had a long
discussion about the investigation and through documents he showed me, documents that he
had lawfully obtained through FOI requests I began to realise that more and more facts
emerged that Bruce Wilson, formerly employed by the Australian Workers Union had lied
under Oath before the TURC, and that Messrs Albrecht, Jukes and Trio, Senior Executive of
Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd had either lied to me during my initial investigation or lied to the
TURC, and that Ms Gillard had also lied under Oath when giving evidence before the TURC.

It was very obvious that these persons (and possibly others) had committed serious criminal
offences, cover ups, lies and deceptions across three States over a number of years, lies, cover
ups and deceptions that initiated the original Police inquiry into the AWU-WRA that I was
tasked with.

The article that appeared in the AUSTRALIAN Newspaper on the 22nd February 2018
suggested that I had broken my silence over this matter, let me start by stating that I had not
broken my silence, as a serving Detective Sergeant in WAPOL at that time, I was disgruntled
and disgusted in 1998 when the Inquiry was abruptly stopped without explanation.

I was disappointed and dismayed as I believed there was a criminal brief that could be shown
that both Wilson and Blewitt had misappropriated funds, money from Thiess unbeknown to
me at that time, by collusion, however as relatively Senior Investigator and a committed
Police Officer, I learnt not to challenge the powers (that is the DPP solicitors) that made
decisions, because they are more qualified at law than me and as far as I was concerned, as an
Investigator, I just simply got on with the next file/inquiry.

The evidence shown to me by Mr Smith directly implicates the former Prime Minister of this
Country, Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson having committed Perjury before the Royal
Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, along with the Senior Executive
of Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd (Jukes and Trio) who had also lied and deceived me as the
investigor at the time of my original inquiry.

It was also obvious that the Managing Director of that Company, Martin Albrecht was
complicit in the conspiracy between Wilson, Blewitt, Jukes and Trio as he would have had to
have known or asked why he was writing the letter to me dated 6th February 1997 in which he
advised me that the matter had been discussed internally and that we (Thiess Contractors) did
not wish to become the complainant in any action taken against the AWU or its employees
(past or present).

That letter suggested that Albrecht was aware that funds had been fraudulently paid to Wilson
and Blewitt via the AWU-WRA and that he was authorising that money to have been paid
despite Thiess Contractors being a Public Company with obligations to its shareholders.

Neither Bruce Wilson or Ralph Blewitt were contacted by me during the initial investigation,
simply because I was still in the evidence gathering stage and I wanted to have all of the
evidence before me to put to them in a formal interview (if they chose) or simply, based on
the evidence gathered, arrest and charge them with the appropriate criminal offences.

Having read Mr Blewitt’s transcript before the TURC there is no doubt that he was truthful
and went to extraordinary lengths to explain the deception and behaviour of Gillard, Wilson
and the others in his evidence before the Commission.

I cannot understand why, during the course of this phase of the TURC that other persons were
not interviewed and put before the Commission to give evidence.

Those persons, are people such as Ms Samantha Tough and Mr Kenneth Bates.

Ms Tough had recently been appointed to the WA Police Major Fraud Squad as legal counsel.

Mr Bates was at that time a Senior Prosecutor with the DPP in Western Australia.

Their knowledge and involvement would have been relevant and crucial to the TURC

Why weren’t the staff of the WA Office of State Corporate Affairs interviewed and put before
the Commission?

It only came to light to me many years later when I was speaking with Mr Smith that the
application to Incorporate the AWU-WRA was rejected twice before it was submitted and
approved on the third occasion, at the direction of the then Minister, Yvonne Henderson.

I believe that a letter, purporting to be signed by the former Assistant Director of that Agency,
Mr Neal, was forged. Following the paper trail from the Commonwealth DPP, to the AFP, to
the WAPOL, it appears NO ONE, and I repeat NO ONE will commit to an investigation into
this Forgery offence.

And yet, as of today, the sad part about it is that the purported author Mr Neal who will, state
that it is not his signature nor his creation, and one other witness who will give evidence that
it is a forgery HAVE NEVER BEEN INTERVIEWED, despite this letter of complaint to
and froing from Agency to Agency, finally landing at WAPOL who politely responded by
way of letter to Mr Smith in February 2017, yes that’s right, February 2017, advising him that
WAPOL does not disclose whether or not it has conducted an investigation (haven’t they
heard of FOI) or details of ongoing investigations

Mr Neal was never called before the TURC to explain that, nor has anyone every been asked
the who, why, when, where, of the forgery. The forgery could only have been committed by
Messrs Wilson or Blewitt or Ms Gillard as the letter relates to the Incorporation of the illegal

There is no doubt that the letter is a forged letter, the author and one other credible witness
will attest to that. Why haven’t the questions been asked of Mr Blewitt (I have no doubt he
would say what he knew):

1. Who wrote it,

2. Where and how was it created,
3. Who was present,
4. How was this raised amongst those present and in the know
5. Under whose instructions,
6. why was it passed to WAPOL by Op Tendement, (VIC) what caused them to suggest
the that the offence was committed in WA, had they evidence, was that passed to WA,
if so, why haven’t WAPOL acted on that complaint.

Michael Smith’s letter of complaint that eventually landed with WAPOL was dated
October 2016 and yet to date, FEBRUARY 2018, the alleged author of the forgery
and the witness HAVE NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED…..a really poor effort on the part
of WAPOL, one person is before the Courts, He has the key to almost everything that

occurred in this Inquiry, WAPOL CANNOT claim passage of time, not in the public’s
interest, no reasonable prospect of conviction. They conduct cold case reviews all the
time into cold case matters such as murders and sexual assaults, in this case one person
has been charged after a 20-year hiatus, why has the inquiry stopped with him, why not
Wilson, Gillard, jukes, trio, and all of the others involved

Mr Blewitt was arrested and charged by WAPOL in March 2017. He fully co-operated
with Police, in fact, returned from where he was living in Malaysia at the time to assist
Perhaps a coffee and a chat with him might have resolved that simple matter and lead
Police on another line of inquiry……but noting happened. Unbelievable…..

The Incorporation of the Association was illegal. Illegal, because at that time (and still now I
believe) the Associations Incorporations Act only allowed for certain non-profit organisations
to be incorporated and a Trade Union or its derivative was not able to be incorporated. Hence
the need to change the rules and the forged letter allowing it to occur.

Ms Henderson needs to be questioned as to her knowledge as to why she approved this

particular incorporation.

There was a TURC, however, this fiasco needs an open and independent inquiry in itself,
given that the main suspect who has perjured herself before the TURC and has committed a
number of other serious criminal offences (for which there is not statute of limitations) is the
former Prime Minister, Ms Gillard.

I also became concerned when I read that Nicholas Jukes former General Manager, (Western
Australia) Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd provided a signed statement dated 15 August 2014 (17
years after the letter from Albrecht) to Royal Commission investigators that stated at
paragraph 14, IF I had have known that the AWU-WRA was not performing the work
described in the invoices then I would have taken steps to cause to services to be
performed or stopped payments to it.

I do not recall having a conversation with Mr Albrecht, although, given the nature of the
letter dated 1997, I may have had a fair bit to say to either him or Nicholas Jukes, given that
my investigation clearly identified that the AWU-WRA was completely fraudulent in its
creation, it was operating from a location (Post Office) unknown to the senior elected
officials of the AWU in Perth, including the operating of bank accounts and the money that
that entity received from Thiess was NOT going back to the official AWU organisation in
Perth or its members.

It was a complete and utter scam on the part of Wilson and Blewitt, (acknowledged by the
Royal Commission) with the knowledge of Jukes and Wilson’s brother in law, Trio and I
suggest with the knowledge of Thiess Contractors Managing Director, Martin Albrecht that
the Company got what they paid for - industrial peace at the Dawesville Cut construction

Thiess paid to keep Wilson and Blewitt from causing disruptions on that site allowing it to
remain free of industrial actions and completed on time and budget.

Jukes gave evidence to the Royal Commission sitting in Sydney on the 9th September 2014.
He stated briefly cross examination that -:
Q. Indeed, Thiess wouldn't have paid if it hadn't been provided, would it?
A. I would doubt it…….
Q. You would have been concerned that Thiess was paying out money if training hadn't
been provided?
A. Sometimes we're not always happy with the service we get, but I would expect at
least some service for the money, yes.
Q. Absolutely. There's nothing, is there, that you recall or that you can produce by way
of a complaint to Thiess, "This is really not up to snuff. We're not going to pay for it"?
A. No.
Q. It isn't happening; we're not going to pay for it"?
A. No.

The question here is now one of what transpired since that letter sent to me under Albrecht’s
signature in 1997, to have Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd all of a sudden become the victims in
2014 when one person, and ONLY one person, Ralph Blewitt, was charged with defrauding
Thiess as a result of this inquiry, despite The Commissioner recommending criminal charges
against Wilson as well.

Several other persons whom I interviewed as part of my original investigation and provided
me with signed statements to the fact that the AWU-WRA DID NOT provide the work for
which it was invoicing Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd, gave that same evidence to the Royal
Commission, and yet the Commission chose NOT to ask the hard questions of either
Blewitt, Wilson, Jukes, Trio and failed to call Albrecht, WHY.

Wouldn’t the Commission want to ask the most senior employee of the Company (who has
obligations to his shareholders) involved why it chose not to co-operate with Police in the
investigation as far back as 1997, but changes it tune in 2014, when my 1996/8 investigation
clearly showed a discrepancy between what Thiess say they believed they paid for, what
Blewitt and Wilson say was provided and other witnesses say did not.

The following are extracts from:

the Australian Workers’ Union – Workplace Reform Association Inc (Association)

• The principals behind the Association were Mr Bruce Wilson and Mr Ralph
Blewitt. They used the Association to receive over $380,000 from Thiess
Contractors Pty Limited or one of its related entities (Thiess) between 1992 and
1994. The history of the Association is a telling example of what can happen if a

union slush fund is allowed to flourish in an environment where proper

governance is non-existent or ineffective. On one view the Association was
established in order to raise money for election expenses, but it was not used for
this purpose.

• In essence, Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt used the funds raised by the Association
for any purpose they chose. Some of the money raised by the Association was
used to purchase a property in Kerr Street, Fitzroy as discussed further below.
Other money has been dissipated, and it is unlikely that its fate will ever be
known. Despite this, neither Mr Wilson nor Mr Blewitt has ever been called to
account. On the contrary when they left the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU)
in 1995 they received substantial payouts by way of redundancies.

• As is set out below, it is submitted that each of Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt have
engaged in criminal conduct and that the papers should be referred to the
Director of Public Prosecutions.

Comment If these papers were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions why it
that only one of those persons was put before the WA Magistrates Court and later had
the fraud charges dropped.

• However, a number of questions are raised as to the conduct of the matter by her
as a solicitor.

Comment Why wasn’t her behaviour then taken up with the appropriate Legal
Practitioner’s Board, surely if she was as deceptive and dishonest in her conduct within
the law firm, as what they allege then she should be removed from the Rolls and barred
from practicing or calling herself a solicitor.

It has also come to light that Ms Gillard had not been admitted to practice law in
Western Australia until after the incorporation of the Association, which in itself is an
issue in regards to her behaviour.

• The events with which this chapter is concerned took place a long time ago – in
some cases more than twenty years ago. A lapse of time of this kind gives rise to
particular forensic problems. Memories fade. It is no longer possible to locate or
retrieve documents. For example, it was not possible for the Commission to
obtain account records from the relevant banks.

Comment the Commission was unable to obtain account records from relevant banks.
One wonders if the Commission’s investigators contacted WAPOL, I do not recall what
banking records my investigation had on file, but I would have thought that they might
have gone part way to assisting the Commission in its inquiry.

• For its part Thiess did not engage in any tender for the services allegedly
provided by the Association. Nor did it carry out any or sufficient checks or
audits of the invoices issued to it by the Association. On their face the invoices
appear to be inconsistent or in respect of overlapping periods of time. Thiess
simply approved and paid the invoices in any event.

Comment I reiterate, they got what they paid for, - industrial peace at the Dawesville cut
construction site. Thiess paid to keep Wilson and Blewitt from causing disruptions on
that site allowing it to remain free of industrial actions and completed on time and

• The tender for the Dawesville Channel Project was won by Thiess

Comment Was it; Michael tells me it was simply “gifted”. The case, questions again arise
that were never identified and asked at the Commission. There is also the question of
the working / political relationship between Wilson and the then Premier Carmen
Lawrence and her involvement and knowledge of this whole saga.

The criminal offence of conspiracy, unlike other offences, requires the involvement of two or
more persons and can extend over a period of time, people can enter and leave the
conspiratorial act at anytime, during the course of that act or acts or events.

• Mr Wilson goes on to depose in his witness statement:

“I did some research to inform myself about how to go about setting up a legal entity to
receive the monies from the DCP [Dawesville Channel Project]. I may have asked
someone like my accountants, or Steven Booth or Julia Gillard. I got as much
information as I could about how to go about it from various sources. After informing
myself I believe that the entity should be an incorporated association. Mr Wilson’s
evidence was that he believed he asked Ms Gillard about establishing an incorporated
association. In his witness statement, Mr Wilson deposed that in discussions with Thiess
someone suggested creating a separate legal entity ‘that could run the training and to
which the funding could be provided.”

Comment: The Western Australia Criminal Code Act Section 7, Principal Offenders,
states: When an offence is committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have
taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged
with actually committing it, that is to say — (a) Every person who actually does the act
or makes the omission which constitutes the offence; (b) Every person who does or
omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the
offence; (c) Every person who aids another person in committing the offence; (d) Any
person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.

In the fourth case he may be charged either with himself committing the offence or
with counselling or procuring its commission.

A conviction of counselling or procuring the commission of an offence entails the same

consequences in all respects as a conviction of committing the offence.

In this case, Messrs Wilson, Blewitt, Ms Gillard, Messrs Jukes, Trio, Albrecht and
others have at some stage, aided, abetted, counselled, procured, each other to commit
serious criminal offences.

• Mr Blewitt deposed that it was never his and Mr Wilson’s intention to provide
any actual services to Thiess at Dawesville. According to Mr Blewitt, Mr Wilson
said to him that they (i.e. Blewitt and Wilson) will not in fact be providing any
services to Thiess, but ‘we will have a system by which we send them invoices

Comment: Corroborated by the other witnesses I interviewed as far back as 1996, bank
accounts, and post office box.

• At the time Ms Gillard was already familiar with the Victorian legislation in
respect of the incorporation of associations and she checked the corresponding
Act in Western Australia.

Comment: Are the two Acts similar, if so, how does she explain the fact that Section 4 of
the WA Act details that an Association is eligible for Incorporation for the incorporation
none of which are a Trade Union. I would have thought with all her training and
Wilson’s obvious very knowledge that a Trade Union entity could only be incorporated
through the Industrial Relations Court.


addresses whether Mr Blewitt and Mr Wilson committed a crime pursuant to
section 409(1) of the Criminal Code (WA) by issuing the Association’s invoices to
Thiess and thereby, by deceit or fraudulent means, gaining a pecuniary benefit
for themselves. Each of Mr Blewitt and Mr Wilson engaged in the above activities
to gain benefit for himself, for each other, and for the Association. It follows that,
at least, section 409(1) (c) is satisfied. For the above reasons it is submitted that
the Commission should recommend that each of Mr Blewitt and Mr Wilson be
charged by the Western Australian regulatory authorities with an offence under
section 409(1) of the Criminal Code (WA).

Comment: OK so why was only one man before the Courts to date. They failed to
address parties to the offence as previously explained above.

• The next question is whether Mr Blewitt and Mr Wilson committed the crime of
conspiracy. Section 558 of the Criminal Code (WA) provides that any person who
conspires with another to commit an indictable offence is guilty of a crime. In the
present case the indictable offence is the crime under section 409(1) set out above.
In other words, it is submitted that Mr Blewitt has conspired with Mr Wilson,
(and other – my comment) with intent to defraud by deceit or any fraudulent
means to gain a benefit, pecuniary or otherwise for himself, Mr Wilson or the
Association. 320. The essential aspect of the conspiracy is the agreement between
the person accused and at least one other (R v Darby (1982) 148 CLR 668; R v
Trudgeon (1988) 39 A Crim R 252 at 254). The conspiracy is complete when the
agreement is made (R v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268 at 279). There need not be
any overt acts (Lipohar v R (1999) 200 CLR 485 at 451 [140], 560 [189] and
[190]). 321.

It should be noted that there has been some suggestion in the authorities that an
accused should not be charged both with the crime of conspiracy and with the
substantive offence (see R v Hoar (1981) 148 CLR 32). In some cases, by reason
of the complexity of the underlying facts, a charge of conspiracy has been seen as
a more practical and expeditious way to proceed than charging a person with the
substantive offence.

In the present case the agreement, thereby the conspiracy, relates to the
agreement between Mr Blewitt and Mr Wilson to establish the Association and,
thereafter, to issue invoices to Thiess for work that was never carried out. 323.
The only direct evidence of the agreement is contained in the testimony of Mr

• In particular, the solicitor advising in respect of the incorporation must have

known when giving the advice that the client intended to cause the corporation to
pursue a criminal purpose. There is no evidence that Ms Gillard knew when she
was giving advice to her clients Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt in relation to the
incorporation of the Association that her clients were proposing to or would use
the Association for a criminal purpose.

THE COMMISSIONER STATED - At least, when the Association and its activities
came to light in 1995 the full story would have been clearer, better documented and
thereby easier to resolve.

Comment firstly, why didn’t the public servants responsible for the
Incorporation realise this and that this was a POLICE inquiry and say, hey, this

is what you need to know about this, rather than just let sleeping dogs lie and
answer the questions I asked, this would have alerted me to further
investigations, lines of inquiry, questions and advice to both the Major Fraud
Squad Legal Officer and the DPP, even in 1998 when I was ABRUPTLY
STOPPED from travelling to the Eastern States I would have gathered evidence
to support this.
• But she (Gillard) was aware of facts, had she turned her mind to them, which
would have indicated that the source of the wads of bank notes cannot have been
the low union salary of Mr Wilson of about $50,000 – a man who was supporting
his family in Perth, his own household in Melbourne, and his relationship with
Ms Gillard in Melbourne, and who was not shown to have had any 125 income
from property exceeding the cost of mortgage repayments – but must have been
some fund he did not own but did control. That is, she must have been aware of
facts, which had she turned her mind to them, would have revealed that Mr
Wilson was making payments to her in breach of some fiduciary duty.

Comment: parties to the offence – counsels, procures, aids, abets, conspiracy, Interim
Report (Volume 1) Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and
Corruption addresses, Part 3 considers funds with variety of purposes. The most
notorious fund, the Australian Workers’ Union – Workplace Reform Association, is
considered in Chapter 3.2. The Australian Workers’ Union – Workplace Reform
Association case study concerned allegations of fraudulent and other misconduct by
Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt, former officials of the AWU. A recommendation is
made that this Interim Report be referred to the relevant prosecuting authorities in
Western Australia and Victoria to consider whether Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt
may have committed criminal offences. Findings are made that Julia Gillard did not
commit any crime and was not aware of any criminality on the part of these union

Recommendations (k) Western Australian Director of Public Prosecutions in order

that consideration may be given to whether each of Ralph Blewitt and Bruce Wilson
should be charged with and prosecuted for: (i) fraudulent conduct contrary to s
409(1) of the Criminal Code (WA); and (ii) conspiracy to commit an indictable
offence contrary to s 558 of the Criminal Code (WA) (Chapter 3.2);

Comment it stopped at Wilson and Blewitt completely IGNORED GILLARD, and

never addressed the evidence of Jukes and Trio because they never asked the hard
questions and NEVER called Albrecht and was PREVENTED from doing so. As this
passage portrays, MR STOLJAR: Commissioner, I object to this. The reason is this:
Mr Jukes has come back to give a limited statement in reply. There has already been
cross-examination generally about Mr Jukes' evidence including this letter on the
last occasion. I am conscious of the fact we still have three witnesses to get through

this afternoon. Leisurely cross-examination on matters that really relate to his

evidence-in-chief, in my submission, is not appropriate.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I am worried about the passing of the time. DR

HANSCOMBE (my comments, Dr Kristine Hanscombe QC (BSc(Hons) 1972,
LLB(Hons) 1989) I accept that, Commissioner, but I have been on my feet for
something under 10 minutes. In my submission, it is hardly leisurely.

REALLY, ten minutes and she was SHUT DOWN. This was a multimillion dollar
Commission and they shut the lady down in 10 minutes, WHY WHY. Because she
was getting to close to the bone.

The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption was established on 13
March 2014 by the former Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, Her
Excellency the Hon Quentin Bryce AC CVO.

The Governor-General issued Letters Patent which formally appoint the Royal Commissioner
and outline the Terms of Reference for this inquiry, that included,
(i) The Australian Workers Union;
any conduct which may amount to a breach of any law, regulation or professional
standard by any officer of an employee association in order to:(i) procure an advantage
for the officer or another person or organisation; or (ii) cause a detriment to a person
or organisation; (h) any bribe, secret commission or other unlawful payment or
benefit arising from contracts, arrangements or understandings between an employee
association, or an officer of an employee association, and any other party;

start that Invoice 001 was false to both Mr Wilson’s and Mr Blewitt’s knowledge at the time
Mr Blewitt signed it and forwarded it to Thiess. So, given than, why haven’t BOTH persons
been INTERVIEWED, charged with serious criminal offences.


in its Report the work allegedly performed by the late Mr Glen Ivory. The second issue
is whether the late Mr Glen Ivory provided services to Thiess on behalf of the
Association during the calendar year 1993.

Mr Wilson was confronted during his examination with a statement which Mr Ivory
provided to the West Australian Police in 1997. At that time the relevant events would
have been reasonably fresh in Mr Ivory’s memory. The gist of the statement was that
Mr Ivory disclaimed any knowledge of the Association whatsoever. Mr Ivory did not

deal expressly with the question of whether he provided services to Thiess on behalf of
the Association in 1993, no doubt because no such suggestion had ever been raised at
the time. 116. Mr Wilson suggested that the phraseology of the statement suggested that
it must have been prepared by some person other than Mr Ivory. There is no basis for
this suggestion. Nor is there any basis for thinking that Mr Ivory set out to prepare
some inaccurate record of what had occurred in a detailed statement provided to the
police. Mr Ivory was the President of the branch. He had no motive to be dishonest.
Certainly, none was identified by Mr Wilson. It is submitted that the statement should
be taken at face value. If Mr Ivory was unaware of the Association he could not have
been providing services on behalf of it in 1993.

COMMENT: Firstly, I was never interviewed by the Commission’s investigators. I

interviewed Mr Ivory. His statement is signed and dated 20 November 1997. I took his
statement, he was nothing short of a credible, honest and forthright person, the words
in that statement are that of Mr Ivory’s, not mine, nor anyone else’s. Wilson was
attempting to discredit the person and the evidence of a deceased person, CAN’T GET

The Interim Report (Volume 1) Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and
Corruption in Part 3 addresses the offence of Conspiracy, and states: the facts relevant to
the Association and the means by which it procured payment from Thiess are set out
above. Given these matters it is reasonable to infer that a conversation along the lines of
the one deposed to by Mr Blewitt in fact took place and that is what le d to the
establishment of the Association. In that event the conspiracy could be found.



Section 8 of the WA Criminal Code states that when two or more persons form a common
intention to prosecute and unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another and in
prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed, of such a nature that its commission
was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose each of them is deemed to
have committed the offence.

The Commission addressed the elements of Conspiracy. A conspiracy does not have to be
actual or spoke words, it can be by means of overt acts or omissions. Persons can enter or
leave the conspiracy at anytime, it goes beyond mere preparation of the principal offence(s).

As reported the essential aspect of the conspiracy is the agreement between the person
accused and at least one other (R v Darby (1982) 148 CLR 668; R v Trudgeon (1988) 39 A
Crim R 252 at 254). The conspiracy is complete when the agreement is made (R v Rogerson
(1992) 174 CLR 268 at 279). There need not be any overt acts (Lipohar v R (1999) 200 CLR
485 at 451 [140], 560 [189] and [190])

This conspiracy commenced when Blewitt and Wilson and formed the AWU-WRA with
Gillard’s knowledge, assistance and co-operation and was later compounded by the entrance
of Jukes, Trio and Albrecht.

I am at a loss now as to why the offence of secret commissions was not followed through
with by the WA DPP. I apparently had canvassed the idea, it was raised and as Mr Bates and
Ms Tough are acknowledged as being qualified at Law by their very legal qualifications, why
did they not direct me as the investigating officer to undertake certain interviews / inquiries /
seek certain documents to substantiate or refute the offences relating to Secret Commissions.

There is no doubt, over the passage of time, the following offences have been committed
through this Conspiracy,

1. Perjury
2. Conspiracy to pervert course of justice.
3. Attempting to pervert course of justice
4. Forgery/uttering
5. Secret commissions
6. Aiding secret commissions.
7. Conspiracy to commit indictable offence
8. Accessory after facts

All are serious criminal offences punishable by 7 or 14 years imprisonment but it seems that
the prevailing attitude across the three States can be summed up by the comments of senior
Victorian Police Officer Assistant Commissioner (Ethical Standards) Brett Guerin, (by the
way who is now stood down because of his poor ethical standards) and was the Senior
Officer responsible for Operation who is record referring to the AWU-WRA investigation as
saying “it’s all crap”…seriously, from a senior senior Police Officer, really, I would have
expected a lot better than that.

Senator, serious questions must be asked in Federal Parliament as no one is prepared to

accept the responsibility for the outcome of this sordid investigation.

Please do not write back and say that this matter has been referred to VICPOL or WAPOL or
any of the Corruption Commissions, because no one, will now stand up and shoulder

Irrespective of the findings of the TURC, there needs to be another independent inquiry
headed by an impartial Judge and lead by a totally on the ball, impartial and starting shotting
Senior Counsel where everyone is completed to give answers and the whole truth of this
investigation is revealed.

I am aware that Mr Blewitt is still willing to co-operate with any inquiry or proceeding and
that Mr Smith who has a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of this complete
Inquiry is willing to assist any Inquiry or Proceeding.

Thank you for your time.

David Mcalpine