Julia Gillard

Bruce Wilson, former boyfriend of Julia Gillard, and his strategy for evidence at the Royal Commission

Bruce Wilson who is a former boyfriend of Julia Gillard has finished giving evidence at the Royal Commission. It has been known for a long time that Wilson is guilty of theft from the Australian Workers Union (AWU). Even Julia Gillard says once she found out what he had done she ended the relationship with Wilson.

I will not write about the Julia Gillard / Bruce Wilson AWU fraud background as I have set up a specific page with all my posts on the matter dating back to 2011. (Click here to go to the page)

So what to make of his evidence and what is Wilson’s strategy? I know with the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) that the evidence that they gather cannot be used against someone in a court of law and I assume the same can be said for the Royal Commission. So in some regards it does allow Wilson to test his lies before the police charge him if they ever do. Charges could possibly rest on whether or not Labor win the next election in Victoria as any incoming Labor government would be under extreme pressure to make sure the director of public prosecutions drops the case.

Naming Names – The old “if I go down you will be going down with me” routine

Bruce Wilson and his barrister Dr Kristine Hanscombe QC dropped at least two major names at the Royal Commission, that being John Cain Jnr and Bill Ludwig as if to say that if Wilson goes down he will be taking them down with him.

John Cain Jnr – (Son of former Victorian Premier John Cain – His grandfather also John Cain was also Victorian Premier – And very well-connected in the Labor Party)

Mr Cain is in a lot of trouble as he was at a meeting at the Commonwealth Bank which I previously wrote a post titled: “Smoking gun document shows John Cain and Maurice Blackburn lawyers criminally involved in the Julia Gillard AWU fraud”

“Bruce Wilson and others were resigning (being sacked for fraud and theft) from the AWU on the 18th of August 1995 and the document below relates to what happened on the day before on the 17th of August 1995. There was a meeting at the Commonwealth Bank to split up the stolen funds and return some of the money to the companies where the money was stolen from.” (Click here to read the previous post and see the documents that incriminate John Cain Jnr)

Dr Hanscombe raised the Commonwealth Bank meeting and John Cain’s attendance with Ian Cambridge when he was witness on Wednesday (1o/6/14) and asked Cambridge the following:

Q. Mr Cain is a highly reputable practitioner, you agree
with that?
A. I would assume so. I don’t know him.

Q. Well, he was the Victorian Government Solicitor for
about 10 years, did you know that?

A. No.
Q. No?

A. No.
Q. And a very experienced practitioner. Do you agree
with that – even at that time?

A. Well, I assume he was. I didn’t know him. I’ve never
met him. I don’t know him.

Q. You’re not suggesting, are you, that somebody of
Mr Cain’s stature would have taken part in something that
was improper or illegal?
A. I’m not making any suggestions of any nature. (Click here for the transcript on the RC website)

This puts extreme pressure on John Cain and his friends to do everything they can to make sure Bruce Wilson is not charged.

Bill Ludwig – President – Australian Workers Union (AWU) 

Bruce Wilson today mentioned numerous times Bill Ludwig who is the President of the AWU and was President in the 1990’s at the time of the fraud. Wilson seemed to mention Ludwig’s name in a manner as someone who will support Wilson’s evidence (lies) at least to some degree. It has also been previously alleged that Bill Ludwig received at least $50,000 of the stolen funds from Bruce Wilson in the 1990’s.

This would not surprise as Bill Ludwig stole over $45,000 from the AWU in 2011 to pay for his own personal legal Bills. (Click here to read more)

Cain and Ludwig are just two of many people (Julia Gillard, Bill Shorten etc) that are obviously worried that if Bruce Wilson goes down they will go down with him. They all have a big incentive to do what they can to give Bruce Wilson a helping hand so to speak.

Harry Nowicki

He is a problem and was always going to be as I previously wrote when Ralph Blewitt was in the witness stand given he wrote Blewitt’s police statements and paid some of his bills (Click here to read). But as Commissioner Dyson Heyden pointed out today, a lot of the witnesses have never had anything to do with Nowicki. Although we can count on Wilsons legal people to raise Nowicki’s name whenever they can. The good news is that Nowicki was never anywhere near the other unions to my knowledge. So who are the unions and the Labor Party etc going to point the finger at when the Royal Commission starts looking at them.

Admin: I am currently being sued by Channel 7’s Kerry Stokes and I was back in court on Wednesday. I have bills starting to mount ( e.g. Transcript $500 etc) If you would like to help an independent news site please read below and donate.

Please use the Twitter, Facebook and email etc. buttons below and promote this post.

This site is independent and reliant on donations to keep publishing such as the work above which is clearly in the public interest. If you would like to support the continuance and growth of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation. Click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options (Click here to go to the Donations page)

And make sure you follow this site by email which is at the top right of this page and about twice a week you be notified when there is a new post on this site.

Thank you for your support.

12 replies »

  1. Seems that when people have access to “Other People’s Money” they love to indulge to excess, without any consideration to the fact that other people worked hard for it, and that it has pretty special value.


  2. Bruce Wilson is not the only one guilty of theft from the AWU I believe. Hearing from the other witnesses accounts already this week Julia Gillard is also guilty of theft. Wilson of course lied his way today and everyone knew it. Gillard has plenty of questions to answer, and will end up telling lie after lie like Wilson. Gillard’s house renovations will finger her big time. Did Gillard really end her relationship with Wilson? No I don’t think so. I think Wilson left her or ended it together.

  3. This stuff is a great insight into the culture if maaaaates who have run the ALP for years. It is one of the few good things Abbott has done, however narrowly political it is. (Moderator: Part deleted as off topic and I have covered on another post)
    Picking thru the morass of claims, counter-claims and insinuations, and attempts to implicate others, could end up like a forensic search at the sewer plant, but for what exactly?

  4. Q. You’re not suggesting, are you, that somebody of
    Mr Cain’s stature would have taken part in something that
    was improper or illegal?
    A. I’m not making any suggestions of any nature.

    A better answer would have been, “Yes, because Marcus Einfeld”.

  5. My problem is that there are many circles above the Law.
    Our Law is corporate Law and has nothing to do with Moral Law.
    Forget Royal Commissions and Corporate Law it’s all controlled….. why don’t we try these criminals in Moral Law with a Jury not controlled by a Judge.

  6. Seems like Mr “I’m Smarter than everyone” Wilson may have really set the cat amongst the pigeons by inadvertently mentioning that he recalls Gillard being in a court or something similar making the case for the association to be incorporated in WA. Seems she may not have written a letter to argue the case but may have appeared in person at a tribunal hearing to review the application. If it is true, she is going to do time for sure. Can you check on the legal provisions of a revue under W.A. Law at the time Shane? Can you do it by letter or does it have to be in person?

    • I have no doubt the Royal Commission will already know the answer and it will come out in time. They are probably waiting for Gillard to be in the witness stand.



      • Yes, I think Julia Gillard will still get off. Too many well connected people will go down with her if she does and they will never let that happen. But we are getting closer to the day when the likes of her will go to jail.
        The positive is that she is being hugely embarrassed by it all as a lot of people would think she is guilty and as more evidence comes out more and more will know she is guilty. So the Royal Commission has been of value, at least so far.

  7. I do agree with you Shane that Gillard will probably get away with the AWU fraud & theft. However I believe Gillard will still get charged by the Victorian police over a number of offences. But the jury probably won’t pin Gillard down because if they believe Gillard is guilty on a charge it needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and I think they can’t agree that Gillard will be guilty if she gets charged. I have been a juror in a fraud trial and believe me it’s quite difficult to pin a charge down as guilty. Also while this Royal Commission has access to everything which has already has exposed Gillard’s guilt, the Victorian police may not have everything in pinning Gillard down. But this Royal Commission has already has done plenty, and it will embarrass and expose Gillard big time, and that is good news.

    • It would appear that Bruce Wilson had a lapse in memory when he said about John Cain “I didn’t know him. I’ve never met him. I don’t know him.”

      John Cain wrote to Mr McCarthy of CBA on 17 August 1995 confirming their arranged meeting at 11.00 am that day and that he would attend with Bob Smith (his AWU Vic branch client), and Bruce Wilson would also be in attendance (evidence from Ian Cambridge’s affidavit).

      Wilson would have met Cain at the bank. He also would have known about Cain of Maurice Blackburn as Bob Smith on the advice from his solicitor John Cain drew up that handwritten letter signed by Smith, Wilson, Barnes & Bill the Greek approving payment by the Vic branch executive of the redundancy monies. Wilson would have known who gave Smith advice to construct such a letter in those terms.

      Wilson forgets what documents are out there to contradict his evidence.

Leave a Reply