Isn’t this a highly significant revelation?
Ms Gillard was not qualified as a solicitor in Western Australia to give legal advice on Western Australian law until after 4 May 1992. Yet, before this date she gave advice to Wilson and Blewitt and helped fill out forms for the incorporation.
Ms Gillard told Slater & Gordon, in her exit interview, she acted as a solicitor in the incorporation.
She told Parliament, the media and the Royal Commission she was doing what solicitors do – acting merely on instructions.
Yet, all the time she was not qualified to act as a solicitor in Western Australia to give any advice on Western Australian law, so she could not have been a solicitor acting on instructions at all.
Did she give evidence on oath to this effect to the Royal Commission?
Commissioner Heydon certainly relied on evidence that she was acting as a solicitor under instructions to incorporate an association.
Since she was not acting as a qualified WA solicitor at all, when she first gave advice, what can you then make of her involvement in what Commissioner Heydon found was the false application for incorporation in WA of a body used for fraud?
I am travelling today but I'd be interested in your views on this important comment from the well credentialed Marmion.