Help Crowd Fund The Jacksonville Book Here
The Federal Court case that nailed Kathy Jackson has also given us a flashback to the way the Royal Commission handled one witness.
Wednesday’s Federal Court findings inflicted some mortal wounds to Kathy Jackson’s credibility as we all know but there were some other old wounds that were opened up once again as well that are worthy of attention.
One such wound is something that may have slipped many minds.
Of the findings against Kathy Jackson a significant portion was made up of the contract she signed off on for her friend Rob Elliott. This was a contract I first exposed all the way back in June 2012, however after the integrity of the Royal Commission has come under so much scrutiny it takes on a new light.
I recall after listening to the testimony of Rob Elliott at the Trade Union Royal Commission sitting at the café next door in the esteemed company of Andrew Casey, Lenore Taylor, and Jonathon Holmes and scratching our heads at what we had just witnessed.
What we had just seen and heard was Rob Elliott, the man Kathy Jackson paid over $400,000 with union member funds to do nothing, making an absolute mockery of the Royal Commission.
Rob Elliott on the stand
Elliott was brought in as a witness by the Commission to be one of the witnesses testifying against Julia Gillard. Elliott’s testimony was meant to be a smoking gun, however it turned out to bear more resemblance to a leaking water pistol.
The problem for the Commission was that the evidence they had expected Elliott to give he didn’t. In fact he appeared to have a change of heart on when on the witness stand and under oath. Those in the hearing room and in the media room watched on in bewilderment as a clearly furious Counsel Assisting Jeremy Stoljar badgered the witness and tried to make him change his testimony on the stand.
It was clear to onlookers that the witness who was supposed to be driving nails into Gillard’s coffin was instead pulling the rug out from under the Commissions credibility.
Now with the wheels falling off the Royal Commission bus as it hurtles full speed towards a cliff, you wonder how the Commission could put so much faith in someone who had already been shown to have questionable morals.
The Commission was certainly aware of the Rob Elliott contract as my article on the subject was actually entered into evidence by Kathy Jackson in a fine display of wisdom personified.
This fact that the Commission sought testimony from a witness with already huge question marks over his reliability and credibility smacks of desperation and only lends support to arguments that the whole Royal Commission is little but an exercise in political witch-hunting.
Commissioner Dyson wears his heart on his sleeve, or sometimes his head…
Clearly behaviour deemed acceptable by the Royal Commission is considered in a vastly different light by the Federal Court.
It was not only Elliott that had been exposed previously, his wife Kaye Darveniza’s office had been used to write and circulate a Kathy Jackson media release while she was a member of Victorian parliament. Her behaviour prompted me to write an open letter to Victorian Labor’s State Secretary.
In light of the Federal Court decision this week Tony Abbott’s Royal Commission into his political enemies has once again been made to look like it left it’s integrity on the curb with a sign on it that says “free to a good home”.
However with the stench that now permeates from it, on the curb is where it will likely remain.
Maybe to the curb is where the whole Commission should be kicked…
Sounds like fertile grounds for a RCi to this RC. Bring it on!
With all due respect to AIM for asking the question…
roflmao
The whole purpose of an enquiry of this nature is to have witnesses swear under oath, and therefore face the threat of perjury charges. The fact that Elliott recanted on the stand from his previous position points out the utility of the exercise. As well, you will recall Wixxy that during the interrogation of Jackson by counsel assisting new and important evidence was led that was not in the possession of the HSU. In addition, Commissioner Heydon decided to hold over further findings of Jackson precisely to allow the HSU to pursue it’s civil case, and so that the RC’s investigative people could pursue the possibility that the Peter Mac payment was actually a secret commission. Finally I should point out that Commissioner Heydon was quite forthright in his defence of Mr Irving when Jackson attempted to prevent him cross examining her on the basis of an ancient personal relationship. None of the these actions by the RC or the commissioner suggest bias against the Union.
In the interests of you not getting yourself into trouble by making false and easily refutable statements about the Royal Commission, and not having your book pulped, or worse, ridiculed for being inaccurate,(which would be costly and embarrassing), can I gently suggest that you temper your prose? You have a shot at writing something worth reading (perhaps the best chance you ever will), it would be a pity to waste the opportunity through over enthusiastic employment of hyperbole. Cheers.
Sorry but I won”t link that article on this site, I spoke to its author whom I know and she actually made a conscious decision to do exactly what she criticised the MSM for, in that she intentionally and selectively left my work out of the story.
I also note that despite her knowledge of events she chose not to write about it until the case was over, thus negating any risk, leaving myself and Independent Australia to fight the defamation lawyers and threats and then jump on our coat tails at the end.
Great work from Frances, proud she must be.
I intend to write the book in a different style
There was lots of bias showing at the Commission, there were other matters involving other unions that were before the courts, yet that didn’t stop the Commission from pursuing them. Indeed there were matters before the courts that were extensively covered by the commission regarding the HSU, but that was involving Jacksons factional enemies so I guess that doesn’t show bias?
The Commission had to knock down the Irving travesty as it made the Commission look like a circus sideshow, however they did let that sideshow play out long enough to delay matters significantly when Jackson was meant to be on the stand. Heydon would have looked a fool to give it any credibility given Jacksons timing knowing Irving had been on the case for years
Adjourning the session as Jackson admitted to breaking the law was yet another sign of bias, had it been anyone else Stoljar would have been allowed to go for the kill. However Stoljar seemed more intent on leading her in directions that may assist her digging herself out of the hole. Given she only dug deeper each time they clearly thought it best for an unscheduled adjournment
Do you really think Gillard or Shorten would have been given a chance for a break and legal briefing?
Well, you obviously have a clear idea of how you want to write your book, and no doubt you will have plenty of willing readers. I’m sure you will be engaging in a lot of of hearty discussion over the next several years! In any case, the story is not quite finished yet.
Indeed, it has a way to go as yet…
OK, Wixxy. I don’t know the back story of that stuff.
just a $5 donation. sorry it is not much. hope there are lots of little donations that add up.