"I THOUGHT THAT AWU THING WAS OVER AND OUT!"
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
The Gillard/Wilson matter refuses to die, and rightly so, as those in power seem able to slip through every judicial net, even when Gillard was clearly complicit in the worst of union illegality. Of course she had the assistance of Slater & Gordon which was also complicit, and unlike Gillard, has paid a corporate price. No-one seemed to notice when Wilson said something critical in his statement that would have made Gillard’s blood run cold… in Sec 138 he said:
“I have a vague recollection that I was in a room with Gillard that was like a court or somewhere official and she was making submissions and I think she referred to an Act of some description. I think it was about incorporating the Association. I believe Gillard had nothing further to do with the WRA incorporation.”
To suggest Gillard had nothing further to do with the illegal WRA entity is utter nonsense. And if she thinks a stint at "Beyond Blue" cancels out her vicious anti-male attitude, she is wrong again.
It was assumed for years that Gillard had written to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission after it had rejected her first (and flawed) application to incorporate the illegal entity of the AWU Workplace Reform Association.
Gillard had been asked by Wilson to “fix it”. She did just that but a search for Gillard’s second application letter to the Corporate Affairs Commission has never been found. Perhaps that infamous file really was empty…. because there never was a letter.
You see there couldn’t have been a letter because the law requires you to attend in person to The Corporate Affairs Commission if you reapply after having first been rejected.
This personal application of Gillard’s to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission was what Bruce Wilson’s recollection was referring to.
So, if Gillard made submissions in person to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission as a solicitor of Slater & Gordon representing the AWU, and then lied to that Commission in order to convince it to incorporate an illegal entity, which it then did, Julia Gillard should be gone to Gowings.
But Wilson’s statement wasn’t read out and hadn’t been alluded to in examination because it was deemed to be “client privilege” by Slater & Gordon who were complicit in covering up the whole matter.
Therefore Gillard already knew what was in his statement and had sought to correct it during a hearing. Gillard’s counsel had advised the Heydon Commission that his client wanted to clarify that part of Wilson’s statement.
The question is how did Gillard know what the hell was in Wilson's statement. Is that not witness collaboration?
"The Australian's" story is correct when it says that solicitor/client privilege does not apply when it regards fraud. A court hearing has now held that to be true and has tossed out the “privilege” defence.
But Gillard hadn’t even been asked to testify before the Heydon Commission at that time. An incredible state of affairs.
So Gillard agreed with every other part of Wilson’s testimony, except that part where he says she attended personally at the Corporate Affairs Commission, and that was extremely damaging to Gillard.
Was there a misunderstanding between the two? Had Gillard taken a role in constructing (and reconstructing) Wilson’s evidence? Had they collaborated in getting their stories straight and that was the only thing that Gillard needed to “clarify”?
She didn’t wish to correct Blewitt, Kernohan, Hems or any other witness who had given damning evidence against her.
If Wilson’s recollection is right and she had made personal submissions to WA Corporate Affairs Commission then that’s the one thing she wouldn’t want known.
The Commission had been alerted to, but completely ignored, the disparity between Gillard’s recollection and Wilson’s evidence, and now that the “privilege” defence has been ruled out, Vicpol is able to order the subpoena of damning archived records. The AWU matter lives on!
So why would have Gillard asked her Counsel to clarify Wilson’s statement to Royal Commissioner Heydon during a hearing, thereby bringing attention to something she would never have wanted known? Is she completely mad? Or is it yet another example of her outrageous lack of judgment?
Commissioner Heydon should have also taken note of the apparent collaboration between Gillard and Wilson and taken that matter further. But the Royal Commission appeared to be a farce and, under intense pressure from the Left, completely dodged the matter of Gillard’s criminality
Wow! The question remains, why didn’t Commissioner Heydon and his team of “learned” Counsel chuck this “client privilege” nonsense out back then when it mattered,
… instead of using it to justify letting Gillard off the hook?
The full and fascinating story of the Gillard and Wilson historic fraud is on the right hand side of the pickeringpost.com home page.