Nick Jukes's statement to Western Australia Police was made on 16 December, 1997 - it was released by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court in the Wilson legal professional privilege hearing,  you can find it here.

Jukes says:

• He negotiated an agreement about with Bruce Wilson about Dawesville in late 1991, he recalls it was before he (Jukes) left his WA job in late 1991.
• Contracts with the WA Government were signed in late December 1991 for Dawesville after direct negotiations between Thiess and the WA Government
• The "wokplace reform model" arose from the Giles (sic) Royal Commission

The Gyles Royal Commission report was not handed down until 26 May, 1992.

On 3 December, 1991, Prime Minister Hawke announced the Construction Industry Reform Strategy.

Here is his speech.

Jukes did not recall the Construction Industry Reform Strategy when he made his statement in 1997, even though his CEO Martin Albrecht was on the Board announced by the Prime Minister.

Jukes recalled the Gyles Royal Commission.   This may well be a Freudian slip on the part of Nick Jukes.   The Gyles Royal Commission discovered Leighton's (the parent company of Thiess) secret and fraudulent payments based on a false invoicing scam for consultancy services described by the ACCC here:

Heavy Construction Tenders and ‘Loser’s Fees’

The tender for the Commonwealth Office at Haymarket, Sydney, in 1988 led to the exposure of long-term collusive practices by large construction firms. Before the close of tender, the industry association, the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors, called a meeting of the four firms bidding for the contract. It was agreed that the winning firm should pay the three losers $750 000 each, and the AFCC $1 million. The project was worth around $200 million. The transactions were to be concealed by invoices for consultancy services.

The arrangement was exposed by a New South Wales Royal Commission into the construction industry. The Federal Court issued penalties of $1.75 million on the companies and individuals involved. It came out in the case that ‘loser’s fees’ were a common arrangement in the industry.

The court found that there was an expectation (thus an agreement) that these fees were levied in addition to the contract price. As such, they were an imposition on the developer, in this case the Commonwealth government, and therefore on the taxpayer.

Jukes may well have had the Gyles findings top of mind when he was asked about Bruce Wilson and the AWU WRA Inc in 1997.   The mechanism to channel money corruptly for sham consultancy services was uncovered by Gyles and by 1997 Federal Court actions were well underway and several executives had been heavily fined.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1995/1418.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1995/1236.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1994/1507.html

Nick Jukes says the "workplace reform model that evolved from Giles (sic)" was used at Dawesville, involving Bruce Wilson.   As we now know it also involved sham consultancy invoices for sham services that were never provided.It seems Dawesville and the scheme Gyles uncovered did have a lot in common.