A Royal Commission into anything is an expensive exercise for the taxpayer, and with the government cutting back on spending and increasing taxes on things like petrol and seeking to create a sick tax or GP co-payment for doctor visits, any Royal Commission has to have a purpose that is in the public’s interest.
It is absolutely critical that the Royal Commission process be seen to be above politics and to have the highest level of integrity.
The current Trade Union Royal Commission is no different. At an estimated cost of $61 Million to the country the public need to be assured that this is not just a political witch-hunt that they are footing the bill for, and probably most important is that the integrity of the Royal Commission is upheld.
Unfortunately the Trade Union Royal Commission has failed in this aspect.
There have been examples of the Commissions reputation being tarnished previously by alleged inappropriate leaks to News Ltd tabloids, and also by allowing witnesses to attempt to intimidate other witnesses and the media both on and off the premises of the Commission.
However what was revealed on Friday in the “Written Submissions On Behalf Of Katherine Jackson” has perhaps plummeted the Commissions integrity levels to depths a deep-sea diver can only dream of.
Submission to Royal Commission on Kathy Jacksons behalf
During the Royal Commission hearings into the HSU many in the public commented on the soft treatment on the witness stand of the Kathy Jackson allies. They also commented on the stark difference in the tone of questioning from Counsel Assisting Jeremy Stoljar when the current HSU Branch 3 Secretary Craig McGregor took the stand with allegations against Kathy Jackson. Some may remember in an earlier article I recalled hopping in the lift with members of the mainstream press after McGregor left the witness stand and one member of the press saying aloud
“The fix is in”
On Friday in the Submission to the Royal Commission from Jackson’s Solicitor Philip Beazley we learnt more about that apparent “fix”.
Who blew the whistle on the fix?
As I earlier reported the submission states;
“Counsel Assisting initially foreshadowed a thematic approach to the hearings involving Ms Jackson. That initial plan, however, was not adhered to.”
This statement would appear to confirm the suspicion that a deal was done with Jackson prior to the hearings commencing. It would also suggest that this deal was done with the Counsel Assisting Jeremy Stoljar.
It would also appear that a suggestion is being made that Commissioner Dyson Heydon was aware of a deal being done with Jackson as the Submission also states
“This change in approach gave rise to a degree of unfairness in relation to Ms Jackson. This was recognised by the Commissioner, who intervened to comment upon this manner of dealing with Ms Jackson”
There were many who strongly suspected that a deal had been done with Jackson prior to the Commission hearings commencing and a “fix” organised that meant a “go soft” approach towards Jackson and a harsh approach to those with allegations against her. However to actually see this alleged deal being referred to in a matter of fact way in a signed Submission by a solicitor is another thing altogether. It should also be remembered that the solicitor in question, Philip Beazley, was organised for Jackson by the Commission itself.
The Commission had allocated time to hear witnesses and to look into the numerous allegations against Kathy Jackson. This was to be the interrogation of Jackson that the public, and particularly the HSU members had been waiting for.
However it seems that the outcome of these hearings may have already been determined before they began if the Submission is correct.
If true that would mean that the hearings into the Jackson allegations were nothing more than an expensive show that was scripted beforehand to give an illusion of justice being sought by a Royal Commission designed to vindicate Jackson. In other words taxpayers were inadvertently funding an attempt to fool them to achieve a goal that appears to be political in nature.
Based on the Submission signed by Philip Beazley it would appear that despite the deal being done with Counsel Assisting before the hearings, the plan was not adhered to. Adhered is quite a strong word to use in this instance and it certainly gives the impression that a fairly solid plan was agreed to by both parties.
The problem was that although Kathy was given a soft ride on the witness chair she unwittingly made reference to accessing union funds whilst not being an employee of the union whilst under oath. This put Counsel Assisting in an awkward position and saw the Commissioner Interrupt proceedings.
After that once the news of the NHDA account and Peter Mac hit the mainstream media the Commission seemed to slip into self-preservation mode and changed their attitude towards Jackson.
This left Jackson on the witness stand after being called back like a deer caught in the headlights, wondering why her prior deal to vindicate her and destroy her accusers had suddenly gone pear-shaped. One can hardly forget the body language of Michael Lawler and Marco Bolano that day, but for those that have the picture below may help refresh your memory.
Bolano and Lawler watch on as Jackson testifies – Their faces tell the story
Whether the Submission was written by Philip Beazley, who would not have been present for the discussions before the hearings, Michael Lawler or Ronald McDonald I’m sure that an allegation like this has shaken the Commission who may have been hoping nobody noticed it.
One thing is for sure, whoever wrote this is not in the nations brightest 1%, as alleging what would surely be seen by many as improper conduct by Counsel Assisting probably won’t win Jackson any favours.
Let’s not also forget the matter of the HSU and Kathy Jackson also heavily involves Michael Lawler whose position as Vice President of Fair Work Commission seems to become even more compromised every day.
The other important thing to remember is that this is just one witness from one union from one hearing.
If the allegations are true then it begs the question, how many other deals were done with other witnesses relating to hearings involving the HSU and also any of the other unions being looked into?
If I were representing the CFMEU, the AWU, the TWU, the AMU or any of the unions involved in this Royal Commission I would have serious reservations about the integrity of the proceedings given what is claimed in this Submission, serious reservations indeed.
Of all of the things to come out of this Royal Commission this allegation is by far the most shocking as it could be perceived as a corruption of the legal process at the highest level.
Counsel Assisting Stoljar doing his best to refer to the script subtly?
This puts a question mark over everything that has come out of the Royal Commission and also has the potential to further damage a government already being dragged down in the polls.
This matter needs to be looked into as a matter of urgency as the taxpayer is still spending millions of dollars on a Royal Commission that is seemingly pre-scripted with already decided outcomes.
I have contacted the Royal Commission and Counsel Assisting Jeremy Stoljar regarding the allegation and recieved the below response today.
Counsel Assisting will make submissions-in-reply to those submissions received by the Commission (including those of Ms Jackson) next week. The replies will be published on our website on 25 November.
If there is any truth to this allegation the Commission should be immediately halted, and after George Brandis has resigned or been sacked there should be a truly independent enquiry into the entire matter.
After all allegations of union corruption are in no way resolved by an allegedly corrupt legal process.
Save Wixxy from his own budget crisis by donating here
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
For All Your Video Production Needs
Follow @madwixxy
Stunning! Yet another brilliant article, Peter.
Just as many of us feared, especially considering all those friends she has in very high places.
Another great article Wixxy! I wonder, is it possible to have a Royal Commission into a Royal Commission? There seems little doubt that this has been abbott and brandis attempts to justify their own existence, I just hope that any future Government will pursue them with as much spite and hatred as they have shown towards others! What goes around comes around.
I wonder how many charity shags by how many people and knowledge of this all actually took in total to bring the fix in? Just a thought. What the hell do jackson and lawless have on all these people that they feel they cannot just cut them(jackson et al ) loose!!
Will the MSM pick up on this, excluding the Fairfax Walkley award winner of course!
#runawaykate far to busy back on the he who must be Obeid trail…. Wonder how those book sales going!! Oops lol
Really, this has the makings of a giant scandal which would ordinarily be more than enough to bring down a lot of people at the top. I can’t see anything coming of it unless a future Labor government sets up a Royal Commission. Even if the bird has flown to Greece by then, there are other heads which would surely roll. As dwejevens said (above) can there be a Royal Commission into a Royal Commission?
As always, great work Wixxy.
It is extremely unfortunate that without your reporting of these things, we would never be the wiser.
The rot has well and truly set in in our supposedly impartial legal system. The political connections are nauseatingly so very obvious.
Let’s hope that one day soon these clowns are done for their perversion of justice and rehoused in the accommodation they so richly deserve.
.
Could we be heading for RC into RCs and how they are founded and conducted.
I think you are drawing a very long bow here, Wixxy. The alternate explanation is that Jackson and co THOUGHT that she would be home and hosed, but then the HSU uncovered the NHDA documents which were given to CA and so, after her first days examination which certainly looked pretty indulgent, they started to ask about the NHDA on the second. I think if you haven’t already you should read the emails between Jackson/Lawler and the RC. Subsequently, of course CA called Jackson back and the rest is history.
If your interpretation is accurate, Peter, your article makes for very disturbing reading. I find it almost impossible to believe that, given his background, track record and experience, Justice Heydon would ever be party to some sort of “fix”. At the same time, however, the facts you outline are undeniable, and I can think of no way to counter them. I just hope, for all our sakes, that you are wrong and that there exists a perfectly good explanation for the events you have described.
I agree with Edgar. Jackson may have thought she was ok after the initial police investigation came in earlier this year and said no further action, but she maybe didn’t count on the NHDA coming up. The RC clearly said they would be investigating treatment of whistleblowers so it was reasonable to let her tell her story, but they then moved pretty quickly onto the NHDA. People need to realise there is a process involved in enquiries. The emails Edgar was talking about can be found here:
http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Transcripts/Pages/Publichearing-28August2014.aspx
I think it would be wise to wait for Justice Heydon’s findings before jumping to conclusions or initiating conspiracy theories.
Sorry to post again, but here Wixxy is a letter dated 6th June (BEFORE Jackson appeared) that clearly indicates that the RC were going to investigate financial dealings when Jackson was branch secretary, including the NHDA. I don’t think the very poor wording of Jackson’s solicitors submission reveals anything more than HER poor grasp of what the Royal Commission was going to investigate, HIS lack of knowledge because he was instructed later and badly, and I feel confident CA and Heydon will brush aside these clearly delusional misinterpretations in Jackson’s submission.
http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Transcripts/Documents/Evidence28August2014/JacksonMFI6Tab2.pdf
If you want to back a winner. Bet on the Melbourne Club every time.
Anyone who witnessed the smug complacency of Jackson at the commission before the questions got difficult would have been entitled to wonder whether indeed the ‘fix was in’. In her own mind she was less a witness than the main attraction at a red carpet movie premier. And from Wixxy’s accounts, Mr Bolano was sufficiently self assured about the direction of the proceedings to consider himself entitled to patrol the premises like a puffed up school playground bully. And then there were those pathetic Jackson acolytes from the number 3 branch who gave evidence about Jackson’s dubious activities in the manner of apostles describing what it was like to be in the presence of some illustrious avatar. There was not one whit of the sort of concern that might have attended their participation in an inquiry into a person subsequently accused of the misappropriation of a million dollars of union members money. I’m glad you are asking the question about the reason for all this Wixxy but the wagons will already be tightly circled around the issue by now. Good on you for your tenacity and persistence in striving for the truth to be told though. It’s a pity there aren’t more like you in MSM.
Some friends have just pointed out to me some things that I (and perhaps others) had overlooked, and I wanted to share these with you.
If there had been some sort of pre-arranged “fix” in relation to Kathy Jackson, and the way she has been treated at the Royal Commission, how is one to explain the outcomes so far? Jeremy Stoljar has recommended that Kathy Jackson be prosecuted either under Section 81 or under Section 83 of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958. Both of these sections specify a maximum penalty of 10 years in gaol.
If this is not the toughest of Counsel Assisting’s recommendations, then it certainly is one of the toughest. On reflection, I don’t think anyone would therefore be justified in concluding that the Royal Commission had gone “soft” on Kathy Jackson. And it also seems to suggest that no “fix” was or is in place.
So, if no “fix” has been instituted in relation to her treatment by the Royal Commission, how does one explain the “smug complacency” of Jackson that Worrying and others have referred to? How does one explain the photograph that Peter reproduced in the current post? The following explanation deserves consideration.
Jackson was most likely lulled into a false sense of security by those closest to her. I speak, of course, of her overseas holiday companion and apparent consort, Michael Smith, as well as her supposed fiancé, Michael Lawler. On his website, Smith has often written of his close association with Australian Attorney General, George Brandis – the implication being that he and Brandis are good friends. Indeed, Brandis did attend Smith’s wedding some years ago – although Brandis did claim the trip as a business expense. However, it is possible that the relationship between Brandis and Smith is perhaps not as close as Smith would have had us believe. It is also true that Michael Lawler has enjoyed good and warm relations with some Liberal politicians in the past.
Putting everything together, it does seem reasonable to suppose that Kathy Jackson had been given a “nod and a wink” by the two main men in her life, This, plus the “heroine status” bestowed on her by many in the media, would have served to instil in her a sense that she, Kathy Jackson, was somehow untouchable and immune in terms of legal accountability for her past actions.
But, of course, what Jackson (and the two Michaels) had not counted on was the utmost integrity of Justice Dyson Heydon and his Royal Commission staff. Plus she had not counted on the current HSU leadership furnishing to the Commission additional information about the NHDA Peter Mac money. Furthermore, it is very important to note that the Commission had even gone so far as to warn Jackson beforehand, in writing, that it wished to investigate matters pertaining to the NHDA and the Peter Mac money.
The upshot was that Jackson, so blinded by her false sense of security, fell to pieces when Stoljar put to her the questions he had previously warned her would be put. Kathy Jackson lashed out with loud and screeching accusations of “ambush” and immediately assumed her present $800 per night foetal position – a position she is likely to maintain until at least February 2015.
Conjecture on my part? Certainly. But also plausible.