The release of the submissions of the Trade Union Royal Commission’s Counsel Assisting Jeremy Stoljar last week has certainly had people talking.
The biggest talking points have been the vindication of Julia Gillard and the condemnation of Kathy Jackson.
The Coalition have already shown us their response to Stoljars submissions, labelling them preliminary findings and saying that they won’t be providing a running commentary on the Royal Commission.
As the Coalitions Josh Frydenburg put it on Lateline on Friday night, the full video and transcript can be viewed via this link.
“Well this is a preliminary submission from Counsel Assisting, so I don’t want to get into a running commentary…”
Some may say that is fair enough, however a running commentary is exactly what we have been receiving from the Coalition from day one of the Royal Commission. Since the commission started we have heard much in the news from Coalition member’s media conferences regarding as Josh put in on Lateline;
“…there are examples of thuggery, intimidation, physical violence, threats, secondary boycotts …”
However these allegations were not classed as “preliminary findings” and these were something that the Coalition encouraged running commentary on.
So forgive me if I find the Coalition position on these findings more than a little contradictory based on their own actions.
On the morning of the afternoon Counsel Assisting’s submission was released we saw a joint news conference with Tony Abbott and Denis Napthine who will struggle to remain in government in the upcoming Victorian State Election. The news conference was to announce a joint taskforce between Federal and Victorian police into the behaviour in the building and construction industry based on allegations made before the Royal Commission.
Abbott gives Napthine the finger
Image Fairfax
So this taskforce is not the result of awaiting the Commissioners final report, it is not even being created in response to the preliminary findings of Counsel assisting. It is in response to preliminary allegations prior to the preliminary findings which are prior to the distant final findings of the Commissioner.
Many have branded this taskforce as a political stunt and as part of a desperate bid to drag Napthine over the line in the upcoming election. There is certainly evidence that would suggest that given the timing of the announcement and the inconvenient truth that Labor Leader Bill Shorten made an almost identical proposal nine months ago, a proposal not born of political necessity.
One also questions the integrity of the Royal Commission when once again we have News Ltd being briefed on this taskforce before the key players are advised.
On Friday the Herald Suns headlines blared out
“Cops Hunt Union Rats”
Rats is a term normally associated with those who report a crime, are the police going to hunt those who report crimes? I thought it may be better to hunt those committing crimes, or is this just a case of News Ltd not understanding the slang they are trying to use?
However in a radio interview Victorian Police Commissioner Kenneth Lay said that he received an email from Commissioner Heydon the night before the announcement which means that the Commission found it more important to brief News Ltd “Exclusively” before the Police Commissioner who would have to actually put the task force together and oversee it.
Given that is an example of how the PR around the decision is clearly more important than the decision or the taskforce itself it would appear to the casual observer that the government is pulling the strings of the Royal Commission.
This is not the first time the Herald Sun has been in receipt of a “scoop” involving the Royal Commission and the CMFEU.
Some may remember the Herald Sun running an “Exclusive” that involved a violent incident involving a female involved in the Commission in a carpark.
The story ran with pictures of bikies and the CMFEU banner and portrayed that both the union and bikies were involved in the attack. The story was later changed as detailed in my article on the mater, and all references to bikies and the CMFEU taken out. It turned out the incident was unrelated to the Royal Commission. No apologies were forthcoming from News Ltd.
In regards to the submissions from Stoljar relating to the HSU I find a couple of things odd in particular.
In relation to the HSU Branch 1 matter involving the Right Of Entry permits, the Counsel Assisting states;
It is submitted that the evidence is sufficient for the Commission to recommend that the
Commonwealth Office of Public Prosecutions consider prosecuting:
(a) Ms Asmar for contravention of ss 136 and 137 of the Criminal Code Act 1995
(Cth); and
(b) Mr Eden, Mr Rowe, Mr Atkinson, Mr Trajcevski-Uzunov and Mr Katsis for
contravention of ss 136 and 137; and
(c) Ms Kitching for aiding and abetting these offences.
The Right Of Entry permits are a serious matter and should not be taken lightly.
The matter often came down to deciding whose testimony to believe. Given this I find it disturbing to read commentary like this in Counsel Assisting’s submission;
“Ms Lee’s evidence should be accepted on this issue. Ms Lee gave her evidence in a
careful and thoughtful way.”
Is it legal procedure to determine guilt or innocence on the delivery of the testimony now rather than the content?
Given that the factional leader of those giving evidence against Asmar was running around outside the Commission intimidating witnesses and media and allegedly inside the Commission hearing room intimidating witnesses on the stand, I’m not surprised the delivery some witnesses testimony may have been a bit shaky.
The matter of the Right Of Entry Permits is still before the Fair Work Commission, which given Stoljar deemed it inappropriate to give opinion on matters involving Kathy Jackson that are before Federal Court I thought would also mean that it may be inappropriate to make a judgement here.
As I mentioned, this is an important issue, and unlike the preliminary findings against Jackson this submission is not based on admissions, but on conflicting evidence.
It will be interesting to see where Fair Work ends up on this matter, for me the jury is still out.
Counsel Assisting Jeremy Stoljar
Image The Guardian
In regards to the section of Stoljars submission entitled Kathy Jackson allegations it is my view that the Royal Commission is still seeking to protect Kathy Jackson.
The Stoljar submission refuses to recommend the matter to the Office Of Public Prosecutions due to the mountain of allegations being before the Federal Court in the $1.4 Million proceedings against Jackson.
The matters before Federal Court are all civil matters, the claims against Jackson are also all matters of alleged criminal conduct.
In Australian law it is my understanding that matters of criminal conduct take precedence over civil matters, why should it be any different for Kathy Jackson?
This comes across as continuing to protect someone who turned the Royal Commission into an absolute circus with claims of ambushes and charity shags, and wonders if there has been political pressure applied by the likes of Abbott or Brandis who have been so open in their support of the alleged thief of $1.4 Million of some of the poorest union members funds, and someone alleged by the Commission itself to have deceptively obtained $250K from a cancer research facility.
As the Royal Commission puppet show continues, and the sideshow of trying to smear the entire building industry in Victoria for Liberal campaign purposes carries on the most significant results to come out of Coalitions witch–hunt so far have not worked out to well for the Coalition or for right-wing commentators and bloggers.
The vindication of a Former Labor Prime Minister, and the condemnation of a Liberal Party heroic whistleblower.
A courageous and strong woman who was branded a witch and a bitch, and an alleged thief and fraudster promoted as a hero.
The Coalition Commission Circus rolls on…
Save Wixxy from his own budget crisis by donating here
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
For All Your Video Production Needs
Follow @madwixxy
More evidence of coalition deception and interference in natural course of law and justice.
I’m glad that the Gillard issue has been shoved to the side.
The big story has always been
1. Unions allowing and encouraging insecure work (See the Chiquita mushroom model for moving workers to Labor hire arrangements. Given the number of jobs advertised for insecure Labor Hire positions, this practice of engaging workers in insecure forms of work is now virulent in Australia.)
2. The bleeding of members industry Superannuation into the pockets of loosely appointed directors. Millions of dollars in directors fees appear to be going to individuals who have diverted and structured worker’s Superannuation to remove any choice or competition.
3. Money flows into Superannuation whether an employee is in permanent full time work or only getting a couple of hours work per week. It appears that their is no money to be made protecting workers rights. Yet, union executives can roll in the clover if the suck the life out of everyone’s $upper.
4. The cost of running internal union campaigns. Union members pay for representation. Hundreds of thousands spent on internal spats and despotic campaigns is money wasted. Cut it, cap it, make it an even playing field. If they think we live in a time when the only way to get a vote is to buy one they’ve missed the point.
5. ….. and perhaps the most important point.
The lack of proper structures and good governance practice that enabled this to happen. Just like with Eddie O’beid at ICAC, the chances of adequate punishment and proportionate penalties resulting from prosecution are slim. The unions have operated in a climate where they thought that because the rules are lax poor corporate conduct is permissible.
In my mind it was never about Gillard.
This government will do every thing possible to drag our former prime minister through the mud ,They just cant accept that she has done nothing wrong,
While on the other hand dear old Georgie Boy has stopped slipper using new evidence ,that being our
lying ,cheating ,PM paid back the money he stole from us the tax payer ,for his bike ride and book launch,HOW can this be allowed to happen
In Michael Smith’s original complaint to Victoria Police on 17 October 2012 (the complaint that triggered the current AWU investigation), the sole serious indictable offence alleged by Smith was “the apparent creation of a false document, a document which purports to be a Specific Power of Attorney dated 4 February, 1993 with the donor Ralph BLEWITT’s signature witnessed by Julia Eileen GILLARD.” Smith had interviewed Ralph Blewitt who, during the interview, alleged that the power of attorney document had not been witnessed by Julia Gillard on 4 February 1993. Blewitt alleged the document had been signed by him only in the presence of Bruce Wilson during the week of 15 to 19 February 1993. Based on the opinion of a QC, Smith felt “obliged to now formally make this report of a crime with a known offender”.
Both Victoria and Western Australia have legislation concerning the execution of Powers of Attorney. Victoria has the Instruments (Powers of Attorney’s Act) 1980 whereas Western Australia has the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990. There seems little doubt that the operative legislation covering the power of attorney (POA) Blewitt donated to Wilson in early 1993 was the Victorian Act. This is because the POA was created to facilitate the purchase of real estate in Victoria. In addition, Julia Gillard was employed by a Victorian law firm.
In 1993, Section 106 of Victoria’s Instruments (Powers of Attorney’s Act) 1980 contained the following provisions relating to the execution of powers of attorney:
(1) An instrument creating a power of attorney may be executed by, or by direction and in the presence of, the donor of the power.
(2) Where such an instrument is executed by a person by direction and in the presence of the donor of the power, two other persons shall be present as witnesses and shall attest the instrument.
It is clear that the Act provided for two sets of conditions under which a POA could be executed: (a) it could be executed by the donor, or (b) it could be executed by the direction and in the presence of the donor. It is critical to note that Subsection (2) related ONLY to the second of these two conditions, that is, (b) above. According to the Victorian Act, witness signatures were needed only if the donor directed that this be done, and that such direction was to be carried out in the presence of the donor. This is in contrast to the Western Australian Act which required two signatures in addition to the signature of the donor.
It has never been contested that Blewitt’s POA was executed under subsection (1) of Section 106 of the Act, and therefore did not require any witness signatures whatsoever. In other words, and on the surface at least, Blewitt’s POA was a valid instrument from the time he signed it. Accordingly, the presence of Gillard’s witnessing signature on Blewitt’s POA is puzzling. There was absolutely no need for Gillard to sign the document as a witness. Blewitt’s POA was perfectly valid under Section 106 of the then Victorian Instruments (Powers of Attorney’s Act) 1980. And even if witness signatures were deemed necessary, why were there not two signatures as required by Subsection 2? Why was Gillard’s signature the only one appearing? And if two signatures were to be appended, then there was no need for Blewitt to sign provided he was present. As inconvenient as it might be to some people, there are some unresolved questions about Blewitt’s POA that need to be answered.
In view of the foregoing, it seems reasonable to suppose that Blewitt’s POA was never “invalid” because of lack of signature witnessing – no witnesses were needed. But on the other hand it needs to be remembered that “invalid” and “false” are not necessarily the same thing from a legal perspective. Michael Smith alleged that by signing the document as she did, Gillard turned an otherwise valid document into a false instrument and was thereby in breach of Section 83 of the Victorian Crimes Act – creating a false document. Whether this is in fact what happened is a matter that can determined only by considered legal argument.
Man found guilty of being a staunch unionist.
Gillard strong and courageous? Seriously Peter are you now drinking the Kool Aid. So she didn’t commit any crime being a lawyer, that was a given. But she sure committed heinous crimes against humanity when she was PM and sending pregnant women to Manus where they miscarried, children to Nauru, Tamils back to Sri Lanka without process and trying to trade humans to Malaysia for caning and torture.
Come on, ALP supporters like you cannot wipe out her actual crimes because she didn’t do something wrong in 1995.
Thanks for the detail, JB. The more I learn the more I fear that the result is a done deal and justice won’t be done.
LLL – we need to remember just because someone has a “case to answer” does not imply the person is guilty. That said, however, I do not share the view of Peter and many others (here and elsewhere) that Julia Gillard has somehow been “exonerated” or “vindicated”. I believe Julia Gillard still has some legitimate and significant questions to answer – Blewitt’s power of attorney being one of them. And until such time as these questions are answered, it is premature to draw conclusions about Gillard’s guilt or innocence. Notwithstanding her claims to the contrary, there are some questions Julia Gillard has not yet responded to simply because these questions have never been put to her.
For me, a definitive event will be what Victoria Police decides to do. For the past 18 months, Julia Gillard and others have been investigated by a team of twelve fulltime Victoria Police detectives as “persons of interest”. Hundreds of people have been interviewed, and dozens of witness statements taken. If, after all this effort, the police recommend against laying charges against Julia Gillard, then I would more confident in claiming exoneration and vindication. As I indicated in a previous comment, TURC is about investigating trade union governance and corruption. It is not about investigating individual persons. The evidence considered by this Royal Commission is therefore not the same as evidence that would rightfully be considered during a full-scale police investigation of individual persons.
JB, no crime = no crime. What part of that don’t you comprehend?
Marilyn – based on the evidence presented to the Royal Commission, Stoljar found no indication of apparent breaches of the Crimes Act. So, naturally, Stoljar concluded as he did. But the reality is, the evidence led at the Royal Commission and considered by Stoljar was not the totality of the evidence in existence. Victoria Police has made inquiries into, and gathered evidence about, matters not canvassed or addressed by the Royal Commission simply because these fell outside the Commission’s Terms of Reference.
Of course, there are some matters and some evidence that would be common to both the Royal Commission and Victoria Police. But the two investigations are fundamentally different on many levels. So, unless you know something that I (and, I respectfully suggest, others) do not know, it is premature to conclude anything about Julia Gillard’s guilt or innocence. Perhaps you would care to explain precisely why you think Julia Gillard has been exonerated and vindicated? I am more than willing to change my view – but only on the basis of evidence as opposed to mere assertion.
Thanks again, JB. It just seems to this lay person/political junkie that some people cop the full force of the law while others don’t.
Hopefully, LLL, you will be proven wrong in this case. The wheels of justice move slowly at times, but they always grind exceedingly fine. Best wishes. 🙂
A sworn affidavit shows that at least one employer is allegedly corrupt and the so called commissioner refuses to act on it. Some independent Royal Commission. But we also need a Royal Commission into the Cth bank as even MPs have demanded but Abbott refuses, just as he will never ever allow a Royal Commission into his treatment of refugees as that one would definitely result in his electoral demise.
And you think that VICPOL like most police forces are politically stupid & not corrupt,Gillard did nothing with a new Labour Govt on the horizon there will be some serious thinking going on inside that force.
Like the AFP, NSWcops,, QLD, WA, SA they all know what side their bread is buttered on the whole thing was a put up jpb but the outgoing Liberal Govt if I were a lot of people in the Media & Politics including NEWS LTD, Mitchell,Thomas and co,also a number of media commentators on TV and Radio hello 2GB, I would be talking to lawyers because once cleared Gillard should take em all to the cleaners.
Easygoing777 – I do not think that VICPOL is politically stupid or corrupt. Indeed, I think Victoria Police is one of the finest police forces in Australia. Believe me when I say that I have not always thought this. But I do now think this ever since the current Chief Commissioner was appointed.
Commissioner Ken Lay is a policeman of the old school – straight as a die, brooks no nonsense from anyone and hates all crooks. “Whispering” Ken Lay (as he is sometimes known) is not someone you would want “whispering” in your ear! I am not saying that police officers, and even police forces, are never corrupt or politically stupid. And believe me, Victoria has had it share of those – even in recent times.
But the current Victoria Police force is very well led, and the people of Victoria are very well served by it. When Ken Lay accepts an investigative brief (as he did with the AWU fraud in late 2012), you had better believe the investigation is fair dinkum and serious.
Furthermore, I can assure you (and common sense dictates) that police forces generally take great care in how they allocate their scarce financial resources. The fact that Victoria Police has allocated twelve full time detectives to investigating the AWU fraud and associated persons of interest (including Julia Gillard) for nearly two years is itself an indication of how deadly serious this investigation is, and how committed Victoria Police is to pursuing the investigation to its just conclusion.
Cynicism on the part of some members of the general public is all well and good, but at the end of the day, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Whatever the outcome of the current Victoria Police investigation, you can rest assured that a correct and just decision will have been made. Then, and only then, will it be truly time for celebration or commiseration.
@JB
Ken Lay was a member of the Liberal Party
Blindfreddy1 – I did not know that, but I will take your word for it. However, I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Perhaps you would care to elaborate a bit?