Trade union royal commission submissions question Julia Gillard's professional conduct but clears her of any crime

Updated

A trade union royal commission document is critical of former prime minister Julia Gillard and recommends former Australian Workers Union (AWU) officials Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt be referred to prosecuting authorities.

The summary of submissions to the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption says Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt ran a "sham" slush fund whose sole purpose was to receive money fraudulently from the Perth construction company Thiess Contractors.

Mr Wilson fronted the commission in September and admitted that his "association" sent false invoices to Thiess for a whole year in 1992.

The document notes that Ms Gillard, who provided legal advice to the AWU during the setting up of the slush fund, did not commit any crime and was not aware of any criminality on the part of other union officials.

However, it described her professional conduct as "questionable".

It noted that Ms Gillard was the beneficiary or recipient of certain funds from her former boyfriend Mr Wilson, but did not link that benefit to the slush fund.

"Some aspects of [Ms Gillard's] 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," counsel assisting the royal commission Jeremy Stoljar SC said.

Ms Gillard gave evidence at the royal commission in September, where she denied using money from the union slush fund to renovate the home she shared with Mr Wilson.

The commission heard an incorporated entity known as the AWU Workplace Reform Association was used to run the slush fund.

Ms Gillard told a hearing in September that she was working as a lawyer for the firm Slater and Gordon in 1992 when she was asked to set up an incorporated association to fund AWU officials' election campaigns in Western Australia.

"I had no knowledge at that time, or knowledge at any time about the banking arrangements of the Workplace Reform Association," she said.

"I provided legal advice.

"I then had no further contact with the work of the association or its banking arrangements.

"Obviously, given the extensive publicity and inquiry into these matters since, I've become aware in the years since that the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association had an account."

CFMEU's John Setka 'committed blackmail', submission says

The submissions also noted the Victorian secretary of the CFMEU, John Setka, committed blackmail and should be referred to the relevant prosecuting authorities.

Mr Stoljar said he believed Mr Setka and other union officials may have committed criminal offences in relation to the union's boycott of concrete company Boral in early 2013.

"The Boral case study reveals the breach of many laws by the CFMEU and its officers," he said.

"Amongst other things, Mr Setka committed the offence of blackmail.

"It is submitted that the Commissioner should recommend that the relevant authorities in Victoria consider whether Mr Setka ought be charged and prosecuted."

The royal commission heard the CFMEU put a "black ban" on Boral because it was supplying concrete to Grocon, a company with which the union was involved in an industrial dispute.

Boral said it lost $10 million in the boycott.

Mr Stoljar said the union had "no industrial issue with Boral whatsoever".

"Boral was an innocent third party who had the misfortune to be supplying concrete to a company with which the CFMEU did have an issue - namely, Grocon," he said.

"To use the words of Mr John Setka, 'we're at war with Grocon and in a war you cut the supply lines'.

"In the words of Mr Michael Kane, Boral's chief executive officer, Boral was 'roadkill'."

Mr Stoljar said the union had shown "utter disregard for court orders" by failing to appear before court when Boral commenced proceedings for damages against the company.

Submissions not the finding of a court, not the findings of a royal commission, says CFMEU

The terms of reference were skewed to deliver a political outcome for the Abbott Government... CFMEU statement

"These submissions are not the findings of a court, or even the findings of a royal commission," the CFMEU said in a statement.

"They are an ambit set of draft recommendations that are just one step in a process that has a long way to play out.

"They are not based on hearings subject to any normal rules of evidence and therefore should be treated with caution.

"It has been clear from the outset that the terms of reference were skewed to deliver a political outcome for the Abbott Government to give them a tool with which to attack unions and take away workers' rights."

The union said it would continue to respond to Mr Stoljar's submissions in line with the process of the royal commission.

Mr Stoljar also submitted that the Commission should recommend charges against Health Services Union whistleblower Kathy Jackson, over a false claim submitted to the Peter MacCallum Institute.

Ms Jackson told the commission in June that a $250,000 unincorporated fighting fund she set up from the union proceeds of an out-of-court settlement with the institute was needed to perform her work effectively.

Ms Jackson said she understood the public might not like it, but it was common business practice among unions.

Mr Stoljar's submissions noted that findings from other evidence heard by the royal commission about Ms Jackson should not be discussed given the current legal proceedings brought against her by the HSU.

Topics: royal-commissions, law-crime-and-justice, unions, government-and-politics, corruption, australia

First posted