Attorney general says inquiry lawyer’s conclusions ‘damning’ despite former PM being deemed to have committed no crime

George Brandis has insisted the conclusions about Julia Gillard from the counsel assisting the royal commission into union corruption are “very serious”, “very damning indeed” and prove that the Coalition’s pursuit of the former prime minister was “certainly justified”.

The attorney general made the remarks as the royal commission continues and despite Gillard being deemed to have committed no crime. The prime minister, Tony Abbott, said he would not comment while the royal commission was still under way.

Counsel assisting the commission, Jeremy Stoljar, also found Gillard had not known about crimes her former boyfriend Bruce Wilson was allegedly committing through an Australian Workers Union slush fund in the 1990s.

The Labor frontbencher Andrew Leigh has called on senior Coalition figures to apologise to Gillard for serious allegations of criminality made against her during their long campaign about her connection to the affair as a young lawyer who provided legal advice about setting up the fund. Gillard was romantically involved with Wilson at the time.

But interviewed by Andrew Bolt on Sunday, the attorney general pointed to the counsel’s findings that some of Gillard’s conduct as a lawyer was “questionable”. Brandis said: “The conclusions that counsel assisting the royal commission came to about Julia Gillard were very damning indeed.”

Brandis said the finding “certainly justifies the concerns that people like Julie Bishop, Tony Abbott and others raised in the last parliament about Julia Gillard’s conduct at the time”.

Tony Abbott was much more circumspect when asked about the findings on Sunday. “I’m not going to comment on matters that are still before the commission,” he said.

“People can look at the submissions, people have heard the evidence, they can come to their own conclusions about it. I’m going to just let the royal commission do its job, finish its work, and I’m confident that what the Australian public want to see is a clean union movement.”

In 2012 Julie Bishop, now the foreign minister, told the Coalition party room that Gillard had been a knowing accomplice to Wilson. ‘’She provided the stolen vehicle, she drove him to the bank and she looked away while he robbed the bank,’’ Bishop said, according to the official party spokesman.

‘’She [Gillard] and Wilson and [sidekick Ralph] Blewitt wanted to hide from the AWU the fact that an unauthorised entity was being set up to siphon funds for their benefit and not for the benefit of the AWU, ‘’ Bishop said to reporters, although she toned down her remarks later that day.

According to Leigh, Bishop should apologise because she accused Gillard of criminality and none has been found.

“The idea that you would accuse someone of criminal conduct, set up a royal commission into it, and then refuse to apologise when none is found beggars belief,” he said.

“This is the Liberal party of Richard Nixon rather than Robert Menzies, more interested in slurs than facts.”

Stoljar’s submission, released on Friday, said “she [Gillard] did not commit any crime and was not aware of any criminality on the part of these union officials”.

It goes on to say: “Some aspects of her professional conduct as a solicitor appear questionable, and had she adopted a more rigorous approach to the task it might have been more difficult for Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt to have behaved as they did.”

On Saturday Gillard said in a statement she “note(d) that the submission made by counsel assisting the royal commission into trade union [governance and] corruption states that she did not commit any crime and she was not aware of any criminality by any other person”.

“In relation to the other matters detailed in the submission relevant to Ms Gillard, her counsel will make submissions at the appropriate point.”

