Today I have to take my hat off to the investigative journalism of Brad Norington of The Australian.

Those of you who read The Weekend Australian would have undoubtedly seen Norington’s detailed and in-depth report on some of the goings on behind the scenes in the lives of Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler. The Norington report which has clearly been the result of countless hours of research may serve to confirm in the minds of many the moral standing of key players in the Jacksonville saga Lawler and Jackson but the behaviour of these individuals some have said has seen them sinking to a new low.

To those of you thinking that I would remind you of the $250K that Jackson ended up splurging that came from a cancer research facility. That for me was a real low point.

However despite the cancer research funds these new revelations certainly show both Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler in an extremely dim light.

For those who missed the reports in the Weekend Australian and today’s Australian the revelations are based around the finances of David Rofe QC.

David Rofe QC is an 83-year-old man who suffers from dementia, a man with high standing in the legal community who has had a distinguished career. Rofe is also someone with an estimated $30 Million estate.

Unfortunately for Rofe he was unlucky enough to cross paths with Kathy Jackson after he heard an interview with her on radio. Despite his diagnosis of dementia Rofe was keen to help out where he could with Jackson’s legal woes pro bono and offered his services which Jackson accepted in a no-doubt gracious manner.

Rofe with Jackson Image- The Australian

Rofe with Jackson
Image- The Australian

I’m not going to go into great detail about how that relationship developed and turned into what would appear to be a bizarre love triangle that also involved Michael Lawler, the gritty details can be read in the Norington articles. However the result has been numerous wills that are in dispute, one has Jackson as beneficiary of a $3 Million share of the Rofe estate. The relationship also saw Jackson performing “companionship services” for the 83-year-old Rofe, services that were described in this way by the man previously performing them;

“When a younger attractive man spends time with someone older, there has to be a trade-off. I’m a young man used to the finer things in life.”

Hmmm, the mind boggles…

Last month the PIN numbers on Rofe’s bank account had to be changed after Jackson allegedly went on a spending spree with his card buying computer equipment. This is the same month Jackson’s lawyer tried to tell court that she may still be incapable of a defence due to the mental stress brought back on by a minor fire in a desperate to further delay her case. I guess the computer was not for work then?

In amongst all of this Jackson’s partner, Fair Work Commissions Michael Lawler also became heavily involved in the finances of the dementia sufferer.

Michael Lawler managed to be granted power of attorney over the Rofe estate, and also snagged himself the role of his financial manager. 

Lawler purchased a $1.35 Million dollar home in Wombarra just near Jackson’s house with Rofes money for the dementia suffering 83-year-old man to stay in. Lawler insisted it was in Rofe’s best interest despite the houses in the area being extremely poorly suited for a man of Rofe’s age and condition. In fact a cynic might think that this made it easier for Jackson to provide her “companionship services” and also mean that Rofe would end up being far more reliant on Jackson and Lawler just to get by, some might say that could further influence a will.

Maybe they picked up their care tips from Sophie Mirabella.

Jackson and Lawler discussing Rofe's finances?

A portrayal of Jackson and Lawler discussing Rofe’s finances?

While all of this was going on apparently Michael Lawler was hard at work for the taxpayer.

One would hope he’s working hard, he does after all earn an approximate $435K a year off the taxpayer.

However it is not just the moral standing and judgement of Michael Lawler in question here, this also leaves a huge question mark over the judgement of the man who appointed him, Tony Abbott.

Michael Lawler was appointed to the position of Vice President of what is now Fair Work Commission by Tony Abbott in 2002 when he was Workplaces Relations Minister. This is an important role that is the equivalent of a High Court judge and it is imperative that the holder of this position is someone of high moral standing given that they in a position to pass judgement on others. Not the type of role for someone in a relationship with someone alleged to be responsible for possibly the largest fraudulent misappropriation of union members funds this country has ever seen, nor is it the type of role that should be gifted to someone who based on these latest allegations has all the makings of an ambulance-chaser rather than someone who would command any respect whatsoever.

Jackson and Lawler

Jackson and Lawler

Many have wondered aloud if it was nice to have a convenient appointee in Fair Work when Abbott was so desperate to see Craig Thomson charged to help him bring down the Gillard government, an attempt many have claimed was an attempted coup. However evidence of this has never come to light.

Still, just as Tony Abbott saw fit to sing Kathy Jacksons praises in parliament, he also saw fit to place Lawler in a position making him one of the largest beneficiaries of the public purse with taxpayers forking out close to half a million a year for whatever it is he is doing at the moment. Still it would seem that’s not enough for him.

Another thing that this highlights is the disgraceful apology that was made in parliament and moved by Christopher Pyne. The apology for the words of Craig Thomson that according to Pyne smeared the character of people like Kathy Jackson.

Pyne and the Coalition seemed to think that people like Jackson and Lawler are people we should look up to and admire. Jackson is facing Federal Court for the misappropriation of $1.4 Million and is still awaiting the criminal investigation sought by the HSU National Office and recommended by Counsel Assisting the Trade Union Royal Commission. Her partner Lawler who has been linked throughout the HSU investigation and we now find that he allegedly has a penchant for meddling in the finances of dying dementia sufferers.

All class indeed.

However contrary to what Christopher Pyne and Tony Abbott would have us believe,  it is not the words of Craig Thomson destroying the reputations of Jackson and Lawler. It is their own actions.

For Tony Abbott to leave Michael Lawler in his current position is an endorsement of his behaviour. The public deserve much better than to be paying the wage of someone who  based on these revelations is of questionable character in my opinion. 

I just hope maybe Malcolm Turnbull shares my view.



Save Wixxy from his own budget crisis by donating here

Shirts Ad pic





Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here


23 thoughts on “Dead End Friends – Chasing Ambulances with Kathy Jackson?

  1. Kathy Jackson is consistent and true to form if nothing else. She is clearly an expert when it comes to sniffing out, and making personal use of, other people’s money. To purchase a laptop computer for the computer illiterate octogenarian David Rofe QC (together with various software products such as iTunes) really stretches credulity. Her claim that Rofe’s $1.35 million Wombarra residence did not have a computer is laughable in the extreme. Rofe did not want, and does not like, the Wombarra residence – a residence purchased on his behalf by Jackson’s partner, Michael Lawler who, at the time, had Rofe’s donated Enduring Power of Attorney. But perhaps the most despicable thing for me is the financial claim that Kathy Jackson lodged with the administrator of Rofe’s estate. As Brad Norington wrote:

    “Ms Jackson is understood to have already sought financial compensation from Mr Rofe — who has 24-hour home nursing care — by billing the administrator of his vast wealth for payment after time spent as Mr Rofe’s companion, sitting with the barrister at his Woollahra townhouse in Sydney’s eastern suburbs during 2013, and early last year.”

    According to insiders, Rofe regarded Kathy Jackson as the “daughter he never had”. Rofe also included Jackson in one of his many wills to the tune of 10 percent of his estate, or $3 million. What sort of woman would then turn around and lodge a formal financial claim on Rofe for companionship? Thankfully, the administrator of Rofe’s estate reportedly refused Kathy Jackson’s request.

    Kathy Jackson is the darling of blogger Michael Smith and his misguided band of followers on the Michael Smith News website. But to me, Kathy Jackson is (to put it mildly) a greedy, grasping opportunist. And the same goes for Jackson’s alleged fiancé, Michael Lawler – an unprincipled scoundrel sucking on the public teat (for life) to the tune of $430,000 plus per annum. It is disgraceful that the Vice President (no less) of the Fair Work Commission should be so intricately and centrally involved in the murky and sleazy events surrounding David Rofe’s estate. That Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler are prepared to take such disgusting and shameless advantage of an 83-old retired barrister suffering dementia speaks volumes about them as human beings. Financial bullying of elderly Australians is a rapidly growing problem in this country. And Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler seem to be early exponents of the art. The base greed, and blatant dishonesty, of these two individuals appears to know no bounds.

    I am ashamed that Australia ever spawned trade union leaders of the calibre of Kathy Jackson, and that it still appoints and supports senior quasi-judicial officers of the calibre of Michael Lawler. Those who support Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler ought to hang their heads in shame. Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler are human and financial parasites of the worst kind.

  2. Yes, JB, amazing facts being brought out, and who knows what else has gone on? Much, much more, one imagines. I am reminded, after reading Brad Norrington’s article, that not long after Jackson’s partner Lawler bought the house next door for David Rofe in late June 2014 (a house Llewellyn says Rofe didn’t want) Jackson and Smith went on a holiday to Bali that they tried to keep quiet. I wonder who paid for that? Not Smith’s bloggers, I think. I actually popped over to Smith’s site to see if he had anything to say to defend his very close friend. Alas, nothing. Apparently they are not cohabiting anymore. It seems, after a Christmas sabbatical from his site, he mysteriously turned up in Rockhampton, only to flee before Cyclone Marcia hit. Strange behaviour from someone who claims to be in the news business! I wonder what the story is there. No doubt it will come out, as these things do. But you probably won’t hear it from the horse’s mouth.

    Still, it must have been a comfort for Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler when their house recently caught alight, with a quoted 40% smoke and water damage from the attendant firefighters, to know they could just slip next door for a comfortable night’s sleep. Without a pesky resident owner to bother them.

  3. As a follow up to my previous comment, I would like to recommend a June 2014 Discussion Paper published by Alzheimer’s Australia NSW Policy, Research and Information Department, “Preventing financial abuse of people with dementia”.

    Although the Paper is a lengthy one (44 pages), it is well worth the read. It is especially interesting to reflect on whether Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler fit the profile of those who perpetrate financial abuse on people with dementia.


  4. Kathy and Michael are two amoral dirtbags perfectly suited to each other.

  5. JB, it has occurred to me, after reading Brad Norrington’s very detailed article of Saturday again, that since Lawler had apparently had his Power of Attorney revoked in August 2014, and David Rofe’s affairs were handed over to another financial manager, that Kathy Jackson could not legally have had access to his accounts to spend money. For her to do so seems to me to be more than “unauthorised”. Surely it is theft. After all, if someone used my credit card for instance to buy a computer without my authorisation, I would have good cause to report them to the police. I hope David Rofe’s financial manager and guardian are fulfilling their responsibilities to Rofe by pursuing this. I would think a very detailed assessment of his Rofe’s accounts should be made, and post haste!

  6. Duchy – a question I have concerns whether Michael Lawler was entitled to accept David Rofe’s donated Enduring Power of Attorney in the first place. Lawler would have known that David Rofe had been formally diagnosed with dementia in October 2010. Yet, and as Brad Norington wrote:

    “By June 2013, Lawler had successfully argued that, given his judicial standing and experience, he was absolutely the right person to be financial manager of Rofe’s $30m fortune with an enduring power of attorney.”

    How could Michael Lawler, a Vice President of Australia’s Fair Work Commission, knowingly accept the donation of an elderly person with dementia, and also maintain that he, Lawler, acted at all times “honourably, generously and in good faith in relation to Mr Rofe”. If the Enduring Power of Attorney accepted by Lawler was not valid due to the diminished mental capacity of the donor, David Rofe QC, how could the $1.35 million Wombarra house purchase that Michael Lawler made on Rofe’s behalf be valid?

    I really hope that this entire sleazy and disgusting series of events concerning a vulnerable octogenarian suffering dementia is CLOSELY scrutinised by all relevant authorities. At a minimum, I would recommend an independent forensic accounting examination of all Rofe estate financial accounts and of all David Rofe’s bank accounts. I would also recommend a detailed legal examination of the circumstances surrounding the creation of the Enduring Power of Attorney donated to Michael Lawler, and the subsequent use of the EPOA document by Michael Lawler to purchase an expensive property next door to the house owned by his partner, Kathy Jackson. The fact that Kathy Jackson is reported as being the executor (as well as a beneficiary) of one of David Rofe’s wills gives added urgency to an investigation. And out of such an examination would come some clarity as to which, if any, of David Rofe’s various recent wills are valid, and which are invalid. Of course, it should also be said that one cannot entirely discount the possibility of police investigation following detailed and forensic examination. If the Fair Work Commission is at all interested in maintaining its own professional standing and integrity, then it would actively support whatever investigation is needed to get to the bottom of this sad and despicable episode.

  7. Indeed, JB, the FWC should be asking if Lawler’s behaviour in this matter satisfies their members code of conduct:

    As well, I note in Brad Norrington’ article of today that:

    “A solicitor for Mr Lawler, Phillip Beazley, told The Weekend Australian that Mr Lawler purchased the Wombarra house for Mr Rofe with the knowledge, support and approval of Mr Rofe’s guardian, former Rofe secretary Ruth Coleman.”

    I am not sure if this statement would be or has been confirmed by Ruth Coleman, who was Rofe’s old secretary, and I am not sure if the guardian has the authority to approve a property purchase when it appears David Rofe already has a home set up for him with 24 hour nursing care. What on earth good would another house, one not suited for a disabled person by all accounts, be to him? I think this assertion by Mr Beazley might very easily be challenged, in fact and law.

    In any account, I think a thorough going scrutiny of the purchase of this house needs to be made, including who it was bought from, who signed the documents, and what independent assessments of Mr Rofe’s wishes were made prior to signing the documents and effecting the transfer.

    I suspect there is much more to come out of this story.

    And I’d like to know if Kathy Jackson has given the computer back, since it’s purchase was “unauthorised”.

  8. Fuck me! I can believe the audacity of this pair of nose – bleeds. How are they not in jail? How are they allowed to continue with their despicable rorts? I’m beside myself with anger and frustration. What is becoming of our society? Will no one stop this pair of vultures? (Apologies to all vultures)

  9. It’s the Opus Dei/Liberal Party connection…

    “Barrister Anthony Tudehope was David Rofe QC’s junior in the Federal Court in June when they were counsel for both Vice President of Fair Work Australia The Hon. Michael J. Lawler and his partner Kathy Jackson.

    Anthony Tudehope has a brother, Damien Tudehope.

    NSW Attorney-General The Hon. Greg Smith’s Chief-of-staff Damien Tudehope @DTudehope blocked the release of government documents relating to alleged paedophile priest Father Finian Egan.”


    Damien Tudehope will be the next member for Epping at the upcoming NSW election. Epping is the safest Liberal seat in NSW.

  10. Duchy – the Australian Fair Work Commission (FWC) Member Code of Conduct document link you posted here yesterday is, to put it mildly, a very interesting link.

    Having now read the 12-page Member Code of Conduct document in full, I believe FWC Vice President Michael Lawler’s conduct in relation to the David Rofe estate matter does, on the surface anyway, give considerable pause for thought. Specifically, I believe it would be both useful and instructive to benchmark Michael Lawler’s conduct pertaining to the David Rofe estate matter against two particular sections of the Member Code of Conduct – Section 3 “Guiding Principles” and Section 4 “Applying the Guiding Principles”.

    Below I reproduce what I consider to be some relevant extracts from the Member Code of Conduct without offering further personal analysis or comment. Readers of this blog are quite capable of drawing their own conclusions as to whether or not Michael Lawler’s previous conduct was, or was not, consistent with the extracts cited.


    The principles applicable to Member conduct have three main objectives:

    • to uphold public confidence in the Commission and in the administration of justice
    • to enhance public respect for the Commission, and
    • to protect the reputation of individual Members and of the Commission as a whole.


    4.3 Integrity and personal behaviour

    (i) General

    Members are entitled to exercise the rights and freedoms available to all citizens. It is in the public interest that Members participate in the life and affairs of the community, so that they remain in touch with the community.

    On the other hand, appointment as a Member brings with it some limitations on private and public conduct. By accepting an appointment, a Member agrees to accept those limitations.

    These two general considerations have to be borne in mind in considering the duty of a Member to uphold the status and reputation of the Commission, and to avoid conduct that diminishes public confidence in, and respect for, the Member’s office.

    (iv) Private activities

    Opinions about the private conduct or activities of a Member may vary but the cardinal concern for each Member should be to ensure conformity with the objectives and principles set out in section 3 of this guide. Considerable care should be exercised to avoid using the authority and status of a Member’s office for private purposes.

    In relation to the use of the Member’s title, care should be taken not to create an impression that a Member’s name, title or status is being used to suggest in some way that preferential treatment might be desired or that the status of the office is being used to seek some advantage, whether for the Member or for someone else.

  11. This bit of the members’ code of conduct stands out to me, JB:

    the following specific observations are relevant.
    (i) Paid work
    Section 633(1) of the Act provides that a Member must not engage in paid work outside the duties of his or her office without the President’s approval. Further, s.644(1) of the Act provides that if a Member engages in paid work outside
    the duties of his or her office without the President’s approval then the Governor General must terminate their appointment.

    And it continues:

    Paid work is defined in s.12 of the Act to mean ‘work for financial gain or reward (whether as an employee, a self-employed person or otherwise)’.

    If you should be a member of FWC who is involved in the administration of the estate of a person suffering from dementia, and if your life partner has become involved as an executor of the estate of said person, and has made you a beneficiary of said estate…..would the president of FWC consider you have received a financial gain or reward? Perhaps it depends on whether the person has died, and the reward or benefit has been realised.

    Do you know JB if any other judge-like person has done this before?

  12. Duchy – no, I know of no other judicial or quasi-judicial officer who has acted in a similar manner to Michael Lawler. At the very least, the matters you refer to in your comment demand serious investigation. The more one probes, and the more one reflects, the murkier this whole sleazy episode becomes. One can perhaps well understand the heartfelt sentiments expressed by both Marilyn and James Cook above. 🙂

    You raise an exceedingly pertinent point regarding “paid work”. The Act certainly does provide for removal from office by the Governor General should an FWC Member derive external remuneration or benefit without the prior permission of the FWC President. I wonder whether FWC President, Justice Iain JK Ross AO, had prior knowledge of and/or gave prior approval for, the activities engaged in by Michael Lawler? Activities that, it should be remembered, were largely engaged in while Michael Lawler was on extended paid (presumably sick) leave from the FWC. This alone should give cause for serious concern. If Michael Lawler was deemed unable to discharge his fulltime judicial duties as an FWC Member, how is it that he was apparently able to actively seek, and then subsequently accept, an Enduring Power of Attorney and administer a $30 million estate? According to the recent media reports, it seems that Michael Lawler might have used his status as an FWC Member to convince. As journalist Brad Norington wrote:

    “By June 2013, Lawler had successfully argued that, given his judicial standing and experience, he was absolutely the right person to be financial manager of Rofe’s $30m fortune with an enduring power of attorney.”

  13. Well, now, JB, I do believe that the members’ code of conduct speaks directly to your concerns, and I quote:

    “Considerable care should be exercised to avoid
    using the authority and status of a Member’s office for private purposes.
    In relation to the use of the Member’s
    title, care should be taken not to create an impression that a Member’s name, title or status is being used to suggest in some way that preferential treatment might be desired or that the status of the office is being used to seek some advantage, whether for the Member or for someone else.”

    To be fair to the guardianship board, they might not have known of this code of conduct when making their fining with regards the appropriateness of appointing Michael Lawler in 2013, it is rather hard to find. It took me several minutes.

  14. Oh, and further to your previous comment, JB, regarding Michael Lawler being on “long leave” (as Brad Norrington describes it in his article) to “look after Jackson” we have the curious situation where a quasi-judicial officer is unable to fulfil his duties, for which he remains on full pay, whilst “caring for” his partner, who meantime is setting up wills that benefit herself and said quasi judge as executor, BUT he is able to arrange POA’s and property purchases on behalf of said demented individual. Did I mention his partner can’t work, and is on unpaid sick leave from her Union (from whom she is seeking compensation because of her terrible incapacity), but can spend many (paid) hours sitting with said demented person to provide them with companionship?

    How do we get into this kind of “work”???

  15. In an earlier comment, I referred to the June 2014 Discussion Paper published by Alzheimer’s Australia NSW Policy, Research and Information Department, “Preventing financial abuse of people with dementia”. As I mentioned previously, the 44-page Paper is well worth reading. It offers valuable insights into a growing, but not widely known, problem in Australia – the financial abuse of people with dementia.

    In view of current reporting into matters concerning Fair Work Commission Vice-President Michael Lawler, his live in partner and fiancée, ex-HSU boss Kathy Jackson, and the $30 million estate of elderly dementia sufferer, 83-year old retired Sydney barrister David Rofe QC, I thought it might be useful to present selected extracts from the Discussion Paper cited above. The extracts provide an interesting vantage point from which to reflect on whether or not financial abuse played a part in the David Rofe situation.

    From page 6 of the Discussion Paper:

    “Our research suggests that a considerable proportion of financial abuse of people with dementia is perpetrated by people appointed as an attorney under an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPOA) not acting in the interests of the person with dementia. Another enabler of financial abuse is the failure of some lawyers to assess the capacity of an individual to appoint a new EPOA.”

    From page 12 of the Discussion Paper:


    Signs of financial abuse include:

    • Fear, stress and anxiety expressed by a person with dementia
    • Unfamiliar or new signatures on cheques and documents of a person with dementia
    • The inability of a person with dementia to access bank accounts or statements
    • Bank, credit and debit cards and accompanying Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) of a person with dementia handed over to another person
    • Significant withdrawals from accounts of a person with dementia
    • The accounts of a person with dementia suddenly moved to another financial institution
    • Significant changes to a will of a person with dementia
    • Isolation and control of a person with dementia by carer
    • Evidence of undue influence e.g. coercive behaviour by another person
    • Lack of concern for the welfare of a person with dementia (signs of neglect)
    • No money to pay for aged care when there should be sufficient funds.”

    From page 13 of the Discussion Paper:

    “If an attorney mismanages the affairs of a principal, who lacks capacity, any person with an interest in the welfare of the principal can apply to NCAT to have the appointment reviewed. NCAT have the power to remove the attorney and replace the attorney with another or to make a financial management order.”

    From page 19 of the Discussion Paper:

    “Abuse of EPOA

    The survey data indicates that a substantial amount of financial abuse of people with dementia is occurring through abuses of EPOAs.

    ‘The POA (Power of Attorney) has too much power in that they can steal everything and not suffer any punishment except to belatedly have the POA taken off them before they take the last ten dollars! Banks state that due to privacy laws they are unable to alert anyone other than the person to problems with their accounts. If the person has dementia and it’s the POA abusing them, then what’s the point?’ (survey respondent – community/allied health)

    Where an attorney acts outside the scope of the power and the principal (person with dementia) lacks capacity, this is theft by the attorney against the principal. An attorney cannot give gifts to themselves or to third parties, or gain a benefit, where a principal lacks capacity unless such a gift or benefit is expressly authorised in the EPOA document. AlzNSW recommends education for people who are appointed attorneys to ensure they understand their responsibilities and obligations to the principal.”

    From page 28 of the Discussion Paper:

    “Legal profession

    The research findings highlight the importance of the legal profession in preventing financial abuse of people with dementia. Lawyers can assist their clients in protecting themselves against current and future abuse. It is suggested that lawyers develop relationships with other professionals and relevant community agencies to refer their clients to for support.

    Lawyers must ensure that their clients understand EPOAs and have the capacity to enter into them. The Law Society of NSW’s Guidelines for Making an Enduring Power of Attorneyxxi and capacity guidelines When a Client’s Capacity is in Doubt: A practical guide for solicitorsxxii must be adhered to.

    Lawyers can be found to be negligent in cases where they have not properly advised clientsxxiii. Family lawyers who identify a conflict of interest must ensure that they advise individual family members to seek independent legal advice.”

    From page 30 of the Discussion Paper:


    NSW Government

    1. The NSW Attorney General:

    a. Introduce a Public Advocate whose role includes the investigation of reports of financial abuse;
    b. Refer the examination of a register for Enduring Powers of Attorney to the NSW Law Reform Commission;
    c. Refer the investigation of how to appropriately respond to financial abuse of people with dementia to the NSW Law Reform Commission;
    d. Refer the investigation of the adequacy of current law covering financial abuse in the Powers of Attorney Act 2003 to the NSW Law Reform Commission;
    e. Amend the NSW Interagency Protocol for Responding to Abuse of Older People to reflect any changes to legislation and practice.

    2. The NSW Police Force establish Vulnerable Communities Officer positions in each Local Area Command to assist in the identification of those at risk of financial abuse and to support victims.

    3. The NSW Government ensure that education is provided to people who are appointed as attorneys under Enduring Power of Attorneys to ensure they understand their responsibilities.”

    For those interested in reading the Discussion Paper for themselves, the web link is shown again below.


  16. GlAd to see some mainstream media interest in. The activities of this deplorable couple. Won’t Abbott and Pyne be embarassed when these clips are replayed after the inevitable demise of these predators? Well, perhaps not but a royal commission into their knowledge would prove interesting.

  17. Just when you thought you’d heard it all, something even more unsavoury emerges. I now think there has to be a formal investigation into the conduct and behaviour of Vice-President Michael Lawler of the Fair Work Commission.

    And it appears from this latest report (see below) that blogger Michael Smith had a ringside seat at these disgusting events, yet chose to sit on his hands and do or say nothing about them. Thank goodness Australia still has people like Bob Kernohan – a person of true courage and true principle. A person who has the humanity that goes with a genuine good conscience. No wonder Bob fell out with Smith – the two men have nothing in common.

    Michael Smith, that self-proclaimed champion of justice and fairness, is now shown to be nothing but a useless windbag of hot air – and a devious and deceptive one at that. He is loud and strident in his unending blogsite pursuit of Julia Gillard. Smith trumpets bold and self-righteous blogsite commentary pertaining to the opponents and enemies of Kathy Jackson, the woman he is (or was) very close to and who accompanied him on a holiday for two to Bali in 2014. The same woman who Smith apparently co-habited with for six months prior to some sort of “acrimonious falling out” at the start of this year. The same woman on whom Smith publicly and loudly staked his own “professional” reputation via his blogsite on multiple occasions. Yet, when it came to the crunch, when the opportunity arose for Smith to champion real justice close up and at first hand, what did he do? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Smith left it to Bob Kernohan to “blow the whistle” – yet again. Perhaps this explains why the previously permanent and prominent fixture of Bob Kernohan’s early interview with Smith has suddenly disappeared from Smith’s website. Talk about cover up and injustice to whistle blowers! I hope Smith’s dwindling band of misguided supporters now finally get to see what a hypocrite their hero really is. I hope they come to see that real Michael Smith is not the person they thought he was. Well might one ask “who is Michael Smith?”


  18. Michael Lawler is one of the most dishonest, deceitful, mediocre and cowardly human beings to ever hold a public office in Australia. Or generally for that matter. He is a person who thrives on trying to bully people in a weaker bargaining position to him, such as women (generally), and staff at FWA. Frequently this has also involved unrepresented litigants at FWA. On the other hand, he’s an utter lightweight when forced to have to deal with anyone else. He’s frequently been reduced to tears, sometimes in public and more often when he’s alone in his chambers, by more assertive female members of FWA who have disagreed with him on FWA business. He is utterly shit scared of SDP’s Acton and Drake in particular. In Jackson he has some sort of security blanket against the mid-life crisis he’s been having for the past decade or so. He has frequently ripped off the tax payer by manipulating his business at FWA to be able to go about with Jackson on lengthy interstate travel when HSU matters have coincidentally popped up. It’s an insult to democracy in this country that he has not been sacked from his position for his meddling for Jackson in HSU matters. I cannot wait for the day, inevitable as it surely is, when he is charged for his criminal involvement in Rofe’s affairs. Because it’ll be jail waiting for him at the end of it all. Where he will struggle in a big way to find anyone to carry on like a bully towards then.

  19. Parky72 – as someone who despises Michael Lawler as much as you apparently do, and as someone who has written extensively on this website about Lawler’s despicable conduct, I would like to say the following to you ….

    If you have evidence of any criminal activity by Michael Joseph Lawler, it should be reported to the police without delay. Bullies like Lawler ought to be called out and dealt with as quickly as possible, and to the fullest extent of the Law. Decent Australians should not have to endure parasitic trash like Michael Joseph Lawler, Vice-President of Australia’s Fair Work Commission. Lawler’s continuing presence at the Fair Work Commission, his continued sucking on the public teat to the tune of $430,000 plus per annum for life, is a disgrace and a stain on this nation. It is a slap in the face to the many decent, hardworking members and staff of Australia’s Fair Work Commission. If, as seems to be the case, Australia’s politicians do not have the courage to deal with scoundrels like Michael Joseph Lawler, then let the police have a turn.

  20. Pingback: My Homepage

Leave a Reply