OOPS! WE SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THAT!
Sec 138 of Bruce Wilson’s statement: “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.”
That short paragraph carries potentially disastrous implications for Gillard.
It was assumed for years that Gillard had written to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission after it had rejected the first application to incorporate the illegal entity of the “AWU” Workplace Reform Association.
Gillard had been asked by Wilson to “fix it”. Gillard did just that but her subsequent letter to the Corporate Affairs Commission has never been found. Perhaps the file was empty because there never was a letter.
If Gillard made submissions in person to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission (as is required for “reviews” under the Act) and as a solicitor of Slater & Gordon representing the AWU, to lie to that tribunal in order to convince it to incorporate an illegal entity, then Julia Gillard is gone to Gowings.
And it could only have been Gillard who attended.
Bruce Wilson says in his statement that she did. But his statement wasn’t read out and that part hadn’t even been alluded to in examination.
Therefore Gillard already knew what was in his statement, she was was reading from it, and had sought to correct it during a hearing.
Gillard’s counsel advised the Commissioner that his client wanted to clarify that part of Wilson’s statement. WTF?
Gillard hasn’t even been asked to testify at the Commission yet. Incredible!
So Gillard agreed with every other part of Wilson’s statement, except that part where it said that she had attended personally at the Corporate Affairs Commission on a review.
Has there been a misunderstanding between the two? Has Gillard been instrumental in constructing Wilson’s evidence?
Have they collaborated in getting their stories straight and this was the only thing that Gillard needed to clarify?
She didn’t correct Blewitt, Kernohan, Hems or any other witness who was giving damning evidence against her.
If Wilson is right, and she had made personal submissions to WA Corporate Affairs Commission, then that’s the one thing she wouldn’t want known.
It’s the one thing, and I believe the only thing, that could put her in jail.
It is clear that Gillard had given “review” submissions to that WA tribunal in person and if she seeks to correct Wilson’s evidence and Wilson recants his evidence then both have conspired to pervert the course of justice.
And there is hardly a more serious charge under a Royal Commission.
Now that the Commission has been alerted to the disparity between Wilson’s recollection and Gillard’s “intended” evidence, it will subpoena archived records. And they will show exactly what she said to persuade the tribunal to incorporate a fraudulent entity.
So why would have Gillard asked her Counsel to clarify Wilson’s statement to 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 Gillard’s outrageous lack of judgment?
Commissioner Heydon will have also taken note of the apparent collaboration.
Wow! That’s all I can say.