Writing exclusively for The Australian, Terry O'Connor QC said the evidence from the Prime Minister's 1995 interview with her then employer, Slater & Gordon, about the AWU Workplace Reform Association and her involvement in drafting the association's rules in 1992 could potentially expose her to charges under Western Australia's Criminal Code and the Associations Incorporations Act.
"Gillard has maintained that she did nothing wrong but has not explained why she says that," Mr O'Connor writes.
"Gillard drafted the rules of the association. As drafted they set out a number of general objects for the association including things such as securing benefits for and contributing to the safety and training of workers . . . importantly, nowhere in either the rules of the association or the application for incorporation is the true purpose of the association set out, namely to raise funds to pay for officials' re-election campaign."
Mr O'Connor refers to parts of the act that explicitly prohibit an association's incorporation if it aims to financially benefit the members. He notes a section of the act that says associations applying for incorporation needed to have more than five members when, in fact, the AWU Workplace Reform Association had two.
Ms Gillard says she provided legal advice to help her clients, Australian Workers Union officials Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt, establish the association but that she had no knowledge of the operation of the fund.
The fund was used by Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt to defraud hundreds of thousands of dollars from the AWU.
In 1995, Ms Gillard told Slater & Gordon, where she was a salaried partner, that she had provided advice "that it was better to have an incorporated association, a legal entity" to manage a re-election or "slush fund" for members.
She has repeatedly and strenuously denied any wrongdoing, and reacted furiously last month when accused by the Coalition of potentially breaching the law in her work advising on the incorporation of the association.
Ms Gillard has said the purpose of the association was not misleading because it was designed to support the re-election of union officials running on a platform of improved workplace safety. Asked to respond to Mr O'Connor's claims last night, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said: "As The Australian is well aware, the Prime Minister has dealt with these matters comprehensively."
Mr O'Connor said there had been no explanation from Mr Blewitt, who lodged the application for the association's incorporation, Mr Wilson or Ms Gillard about why its real purpose was not clearly set out in the documents.
He said Mr Blewitt, as the applicant, could have been charged with knowingly giving false information to the Corporate Affairs Commissioner "as he was aware that the objects set out in the rules were not the true object of the association and that the certification in the formal application was false". "Without some explanation from (Ms Gillard) as to what occurred, there is, in my opinion, a prima facie case that she could have been charged along with Mr Blewitt as she drafted the rules of the association for Mr Blewitt knowing that the rules did not disclose the purpose for which the association was being incorporated," Mr O'Connor writes.
He also cites sections of the state Criminal Code that refer to providing false information.
Mr O'Connor began his legal career in 1961 and took silk in 1987. He served as chairman of the Anti-Corruption Commission in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and spent 15 years as chancellor of the University of Notre Dame.
He told The Australian he had not confirmed whether a statute of limitations had run out on the relevant laws but said it was very unlikely any charges would be laid given the elapsed time.
'Gillard has maintained she did nothing wrong but has not explained why she says that': QC | The Australian:
He told The Australian he had not confirmed whether a statute of limitations had run out on the relevant laws but said it was very unlikely any charges would be laid given the elapsed time.
ReplyDeleteThis is so wrong, if Gillard has did the crime she should do the time.
Just because time has passed the crime is still there which she needs to be accounted for.