Royal commission: Gillard told untruths; boyfriend paid for renovations with “illegitimate” cash
The interim report of the royal commission into union corruption is devastating to former Labor leader Julia Gillard and damaging to the current leader, Bill Shorten.
Royal commissioner Dyson Heydon says Julia Gillard did not tell the truth, and her renovations were paid for by her then boyfriend, corrupt AWU union official Bruce Wilson, using money she should have realised was “illegitimate”:
…the manner in which she uttered these words denying what [builder] Athol James said [about Gillard telling him the renovations were paid for by Wilson] seemed to be excessive, forced, and asseverated. There was an element of acting in her demeanour. She delivered those words in a dramatic and angry way, but the delivery fell flat. She protested too much. She chose to fight him. It was a fight in which there could be only one winner. Unfortunately, she lost that fight.’
There is a benign explanation for Julia Gillard’s testimony and there is a less benign explanation. Behind each explanation lies the fact that, unlike Athol James, she had a strong motive to see her version of events accepted.’
The benign explanation is that the testimony proceeded from vellity. She wanted it to be the case that she had paid for all the renovation work. Over 20 years, subconsciously, she convinced herself that it was the case. So dearly cherished an outcome became inexpugnably part of her mentality.’
The less benign explanation is that she knew her testimony was false. It might have been knowingly false in the sense that she remembered the key events happening, but chose to deny them. Or it might have been knowingly false in the sense that she could not remember one way or the other whether the key events happened, but chose to deny them. In each case she was telling a knowing untruth about her mental state…
Julia Gillard was the recipient of certain funds from Bruce Wilson as described in the evidence of Athol James and [former AWU official] Wayne Hem. The skimpy nature of the evidence does not make it possible to infer on the balance of probabilities that Julia Gillard was aware that she had received the $5,000 which Wayne Hem put into her bank account on Bruce Wilson’s instructions. That is event truer of the events which Wayne Hem observed at her house…
The position is different in relation to the wads of bank notes observed by Athol James. Julia Gillard was at least aware of facts, had she turned her mind to them, which would have indicated that the source of those bank notes cannot have been the low union salary of Bruce Wilson of about $50,000...she must have been aware of facts, which, had she turned her mind to them, would have revealed that Bruce Wilson was making payments to her in the presence of Athol James using money which he had no right to use for that purpose because his duty was to repay it to Thiess … It is quite improbable that the source was legitimate, i.e. the salary’
Heydon is rightly scathing of what I called Gillard’s do-you-know-who-I-am defence: Senior counsel for Julia Gillard put the following submission:
The Commission should give significant weight to Ms Gillard’s good character and reputation. The Commission has little or no evidence before it of the character or reputation of Messrs James and Hem. In the context of these proceedings there is no reason to prefer their evidence over that of Ms Gillard.’
This is a mystifying submission. It is a dangerous submission. And, if it were correct, it would be a troubling submission…
A further problem raised by the submission is that though there is virtually no evidence of Julia Gillard’s good reputation and character beyond that which is to be inferred from her status as a former Prime Minister and from the other aspects of her career which are notorious, she is given the accolade of having a ‘good’ reputation and character.’
There is no reason to adopt some presumption in favour of her and against them (James and Hem). If some such presumption were adopted, it would always be the case that the powerful, the celebrated and the successful will have undue advantages over the weak, the obscure and those of moderate achievement. Then would be the time to ask the question: ‘Little man, what now?’ It is a strange submission to be advanced on behalf of a former politician belonging to the Australian Labor Party tradition – a tradition of social democracy.’
And this goes without saying: there was a ‘lapse in professional judgment on Julia Gillard’s part’ in acting for Mr Wilson, with whom she had a personal relationship.
But Gillard escapes serious criticism for her legal work, and no charges are recommended against her, as Hedley Thomas reports: JULIA Gillard faces no criminal action for her legal work on a slush fund for her allegedly corrupt union boss boyfriend, Bruce Wilson.
But her two former AWU clients, Mr Wilson and his sidekick Ralph Blewitt, are likely to be charged with offences as a result of findings released today by former High Court judge Dyson Heydon’s Royal Commission into Union Corruption…
“The skimpy nature of the available evidence does not make it possible to infer on the balance of probabilities that Julia Gillard was aware that she had received the $5,000 which Wayne Hem put into her bank account on Bruce Wilson’s instructions.
Heydon also ruled that “It is no criticism of Julia Gillard to conclude that payments of that kind were being made if she was ignorant of them — any more than it is a criticism of her that Bruce Wilson arranged for Wayne Hem to pay $5,000 into her bank account if she was ignorant of it”.
He said the evidence was “ insufficient to justify rejection of her claim that she had no relevant knowledge”.
In relation to Ms Gillard’s role as a solicitor at Slater & Gordon, Commissioner Heydon found that if she “had interrogated Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt closely about whether the (slush fund) Association existed, who its members were and how they had given authority to make the Application, a central pillar of Bruce Wilson’s plan would have begun crumbling"… “However, that failure to interrogate Ralph Blewitt and Bruce Wilson was not itself a breach of the duties created by the retainer.” As for Bill Shorten:
The royal commissioner accepts that former AWU state president Bob Kernohan told then AWU official Bill Shorten that ‘it was a bloody disgrace that they (Wilson and Blewitt) received redundancy payments whilst they were internally investigated for fraud.’
Kernohan claimed: ‘SHORTEN cut me off, not in a nasty way, and he said words like, “Bob, think of your future. There’s been a payout, we are all just moving on.“‘
‘SHORTEN put his hand on my shoulder and responded, “Bob think of your future.” He said, “If you pursue this, a lot of good people will get hurt and you will be on your own. Look Bob, you’ve been lined up to take a safe labor (sic) seat of Milton (sic) in the Victorian parliament.”
Heydon rules:
William Shorten’s position is that while he does not remember what he says, and while he does not believe he said what is alleged, he does not deny saying it.’
Over the last two decades William Shorten has had many cares, borne many burdens and performed many different roles while ascending the greasy pole. It is accordingly not surprising that his position is as stated above.’
On the probabilities it is likely that the incident took place as Robert Kernohan narrates it.
So one former Labor prime minister had her renovations paid for with stolen money and did not tell the truth about it, and the man wanting to be the next Labor Prime Minister in all probability wanted it hushed up. So finds the royal commissioner.
And this is a story the ABC and many Canberra press gallery journalists refused for years to cover or take seriously.
Some of the other findings damage senior Labor figures Sam Dastyari and Tony Sheldon, as well as Kimberley Kitching.
