This week I have finalised my witness statement for the Trade Union Royal Commission and put evidence together.

It is great that I have had the opportunity to present this evidence that until recently have been brushed aside by Victoria Police, Liberal Party die-hards, and until a couple of months ago most sections of the main stream media.

I certainly see why Kathy Jackson chose to deliver her evidence regarding Michael Williamson via the press as the police seem in no hurry at all to lift a finger until the media start to make them look like they are on a permanent tea and donut break, I’m certainly glad that homicide detectives take their roles a little more seriously then their colleagues in the fraud squad.

We can also clearly see why Kathy Jackson does not like the media having access to evidence. The result of this has been that she now finds herself in a similar position to Craig Thomson was with the media back when she was first pointing a seemingly crooked finger in his direction rather then wildly in every direction as she appears to be doing now..

However providing evidence and a statement to a Royal Commission has opened my eyes somewhat to the way they are run and what improvements should be made.

Royal Commissions are viewed in Australia as the ultimate in Inquiries.

They are seen by the public as a means of getting to the bottom of corruption within our system because they have the capability of probing into dark corners that other types of Inquiries cannot reach.

One of the other reasons the public look up to Royal Commissions is that anybody is capable of having a say if they feel it is something that is important to the process or if they have evidence or an allegation to put forward.

As anybody who has read any of my writing on the Health Services Union would be aware, this Royal Commission into selected Trade Unions was of special interest to me, particularly given that it included the HSU.

As I mentioned there is the perception that anybody can have a say in a Royal Commission however I think that is a perception worth looking at as it is probably not as easy as most would expect it to be.

In order to submit evidence or a statement it must meet criteria that can be found via the Royal Commission website, which one needs to visit to know how to submit of information.

Upon finding the website you will then go to the page entitled “Providing Information” where you will see a number of scenarios.

Once on the page there are the options of giving information as a whistleblower, a union official, or someone with knowledge of the funding of union elections.

All of these options come with a hefty document to read which cross references various parts of the Fair Work (Registered Organisation) Act 2009, which at a mere 515 pages is not what I would call a lightweight document.

If someone wishes to appear there are also Terms Of Reference to get your head around, this document is in legal terms and is linked below.

 Letters Patent Royal Commissioninto Trade Union Corruption and Governance

All of this must seem rather daunting to someone looking to give evidence unless they have the means to access a lawyer willing to look at appearing before a Royal Commission.

Try to imagine a junior staffer in a union or an apprentice on a building site getting their heads around all of this legal talk, or having enough money to fund a lawyer who will take on their employer or union in such a public manner.

I think it would be a major issue for most.

The way that giving evidence before the Commission then works is that the ones best able to appear or give evidence would be those with political backing or the financial backing of others with vested interests. This hardly makes this Royal Commission geared for the fairest possible outcome.

This appears to me to immensely favour those whom we should be trying to weed out.

My experience with the Commission differs to most however it also illuminates other issues with the way the Commission operates.

I have been named within two witness statements and allegations have been raised against me. Both of these allegations have been completely ridiculous and are easily disproved. However I felt it was important to defend myself against those who sought to defame me.

Far from being intimidated by their baseless allegations however I welcome them as it gives me the opportunity to respond with evidence.

Desperate attempts to smear the messenger only highlight the desperate need to distract others from the evidence being presented and only ends up making them look like they are covering something up that may be even bigger than the evidence suggests. 

Below is a copy of the letter I received from the Commission that adressed my right of reply.

Letter to Mr Peter Wicks from James Beaton 27.06.2014 

This letter is basically lawyer speak saying that I could make a statement or apply to cross-examine witnesses, but again cross-examination is something that many would be loath to tackle without seeking costly legal advice. Yet another road block for the average person.

There is also the matter of your application to cross-examine a witness approved and what subjects one is allowed to cross-examine on.

After seeking legal advice from a few with qualifications that made them far better equipped to make a decision than I was, I came to the decision that at this time I would not seek to cross-examine the witnesses in question Katrina Hart and Kathy Jackson as tempting a prospect as it was.

The reason for this is because I do not have an endless supply of funds or a team of right wingers willing to financially support my legal costs. The overall consensus amongst those I asked was that if I were to cross-examine Kathy Jackson then I would be dragged in and out of court and be up for huge legal costs. One can only imagine a lay person faced with this prospect of seemingly bottomless debt.

Providing a statement means that I can put all the evidence forward and hope that the Commission in its wisdom doesn’t decide to censor out the parts it doesn’t like as they did to Bruce Wilson.

Now I could probably find some way of financing legal services however I’m not the type who likes owing favours and for the average bloke on the street this would be a highly unlikely prospect. 

The issue with doing nothing as some suggested is that whatever ridiculous statements made against me would stand, and it could and probably would be presented at a later date that I did not argue against the allegations, no matter how preposterous.

Several in the legal profession validly pointed out to me that Kathy Jackson and Katrina Hart and those associated with them have now destroyed their credibility entirely and nobody takes anything they say seriously at all. However I am someone who seeks to ensure these people are held to account for their words as well as their actions and as such have addressed their defamatory claims in a statement.

Rather than go through the whole ordeal of cross-examination I thought that I’d put things into a witness statement along with the evidence I have.

There is a specific format that needs to be used when doing a statement, however that is not too difficult. When submitting electronically the evidence needs to be listed in a particular way. Each piece of evidence needs to be listed on an Excel spreadsheet and given a tag such as Annexure A, then each individual piece of evidence needs to be hyperlinked back to the spreadsheet and where the evidence is referred to in the witness statement.

Again this was not an issue for me, however I can imagine for someone not so computer literate it might be.

Anyway I thought some of you may be interested in the process involved with taking part in a Royal Commission and make your own judgements as to how fair a system it is.

Many have asked me what happens next.

As far as I am aware the HSU matters come back before the Commission in August although I’m not sure exactly when in August that will be.

At that time witnesses will be cross-examined by interested parties.

I am not sure if and when my statement will be made public by the Commission or any other statements that the Commission may have received.

Anyway, my statement is based on evidence and witness statements only while Jacksons defence seems to be based on to quote Yes Minister “The Great Discriminating Flood Of ‘68”, the flood that she claims destroyed all of the evidence that proves her innocence and left behind the evidence on Williamson and Thomson.

For those whom have asked I am unaware if Jackson has claimed that the silver surfer alien was riding the waves of this alleged flood, nor am I aware of there being any claims of Noah’s ark washing in.

At least not yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Follow @madwixxy