If there is one thing that is important above all for any court in the land it is its integrity.
If the public has no faith in the integrity of the court than the public has lost faith in the concept of justice, and this is only one step away from losing respect for the law altogether.
For this reason there are laws and rules that are designed to protect the courts integrity as well as the integrity of those who serve the court.
For a Royal Commission the same applies, there are specific rules, procedures and laws that need to be followed and adhered to. These are there to protect the integrity of the Royal Commission as the public need to have faith in the integrity in what is the most respected and thorough public inquiry that can be held in this country.
That is why those who seek to ride roughshod over the rules, pervert the procedures and laugh at the law need to be held to account, as do those who allow this to happen.
The Trade Union Royal Commission is currently being made an absolute mockery of and is having its integrity systematically destroyed by a few individuals who by their actions have shown that they have no regard for the law whatsoever.
Today I wanted to talk about a few of them.
Many have mentioned how weak the cross-examination of Kathy Jackson ended up becoming.
The Trade Union Royal Commission has a tight time schedule and knowing this it would appear that every desperate attempt to delay proceedings to avoid any decent cross-examination was used by Jackson.
We had the episode where Jackson claimed the Commission had “ambushed” her and she refused to answer questions, sought to have a taxpayer funded lawyer appointed to her and fled the witness stand. Then came the excuse that her lawyer had not had enough time to go over the evidence and allegations in the statement of HSU Acting National President Chris Brown. This little tactic meant that any cross-examination would be weak as most of what Jackson was to be cross-examined on was now out of bounds. Then came the charity shag tactic where Jackson claimed she should not be cross-examined by the HSU National Offices lawyer Mark Irving as the two of them had been in a sexual relationship over 20 years ago when Kathy was on her first husband and Irving was clearly on something that impaired his judgement. This little stunt wasted valuable time on a day that had been set aside for Jackson to face what many other witnesses managed to face without the antics and theatrics.
The statement of the HSU Acting National President Chris Brown is still only available in its heavily censored form and it has been suggested that this statement contains new and possibly even more damaging evidence against Jackson that she wishes to see suppressed as long as possible. The delay on releasing this statement in full has provided further evidence to many that Jackson may be receiving preferential treatment from the Commission.
It seems now that even if Browns statement is made public eventually it will be after the hearings are finished. This means it will be likely missed by many in the main stream media, and any coverage of Jackson appearing at the Commission to answer for these allegations on the news will no longer happen as she won’t have to appear regarding them at all. How convenient.
It is clear to even the most casual of observers that Jackson has manipulated the Royal Commission to avoid answering questions under oath that she does not want to answer, and has sought to delay proceedings so that evidence she doesn’t want made public will be held back from public scrutiny by the Commission.
Meanwhile Jackson’s partner, Fair Work Commissions Vice President Michael Lawler has been reported as barking insults and threats at two well respected journalists outside the Royal Commissions hearing rooms during a break in proceedings. Lawler who has the legal standing of a High Court Judge, one would assume would use better judgement when present at a Royal Commission, however it seems not. Lawler has shown absolutely no respect for the integrity of what is someone else’s courtroom and I’m sure that given he would not expect this kind of behaviour in the Fair Work Commissions courtrooms maybe the parliament should look at his position and rethink who might better serve the public’s interests. After all, in behaving this way he clearly has no problem making a mockery of the man who appointed him to his position, Tony Abbott.
There is of course another man in Kathy Jacksons life, and I’m not talking about her apparent latest charity case who according to The Australian is living in her granny flat, I speak of course of Marco Bolano.
Marco Bolano and Michael “charity” Smith
Bolano has been hard to miss at the Royal Commission due to his behaviour.
Bolano during recent proceedings is virtually shadowed by the Royal Commission’s security man, this is because his erratic behaviour has been hard to miss.
During the hearings into the HSU there have been several complaints made to police regarding his threatening behaviour as well as complaints made to the Commissions security.
This week further allegations emerged regarding Bolano’s behaviour inside the Commission’s hearing room during witness testimony that I thought warranted attention.
I contacted the Commissions Director Media and Communications, Adrian Kerr to ask what action if any the Commission were thinking of taking re Bolano’s clear attempts to intimidate both media and witnesses, below is a link to the email exchange, I have placed the order of emails the right way around so you don’t have to start at the bottom of the trail..
Emails between myself and TURC Media Director
I can’t get a copy of my own complaint regarding Bolano’s behaviour?
Consider this we are talking about a Royal Commission into the behaviour of Trade Union officials, a Royal Commission that is supposed to expose corruption and intimidation and thuggery amongst other things. Here we have an ex union official intimidating the media and witnesses both outside and inside the Royal Commission. A man who during a Commission hearing right in the hearing room is intimidating people and some have alleged made death threats, right under the Commissions nose.
If the Commission can’t stop this behaviour in its own hearing room how can anybody have any confidence that it can stop it in the workplace?
In fact when it comes to threats and actual attacks the Commission was quick to comment on another matter.
A lawyer who had appeared at the Royal Commission was bashed on Thursday night after she went out after the Commission hearing, this is a gutless crime bashing a woman in a car park at night.
However it is what came afterwards that highlights issues with the Commission itself.
On Friday an article ran in the Herald Sun regarding the incident.
The Royal Commission had provided an “Exclusive” statement to the Herald Sun regarding the incident.
Firstly, what is the Commission doing giving exclusive statements to the Herald Sun? Surely any statement should be put up on their website publicly and released to all press at the same time. Or is the Royal Commission performing favours now?
The article went on to talk about the CFMEU and bikie gangs, seemingly implicating them in the bashing and also running a picture of protesters waving the CFMEU banner.
As it turns out, the crime was not related to the Royal Commission and certainly not the CFMEU or bikie gangs, it was just an unfortunate crime.
The Herald Sun article has now had a drastic overhaul and references to the CFMEU and bikies have been taken out, as has most of the original article. A link to a saved copy of the original article is below.
Herald Sun Article In Original Form
I wonder when the Herald Sun and the Royal Commission will be issuing apologies to the CFMEU for this little blunder. I’m sure the Royal Commission will be thrilled with being placed in the embarrassing position of needing to apologise to one of the unions it is investigating.
I also wonder why the Royal Commission will not allow me to receive details on my own complaint due to whatever secrecy guidelines they operate on, yet are happy to provide exclusive statements to favoured news agencies on crimes that have no bearing on the Commission.
Tony Abbott told us that this Royal Commission was about shining a light, or a means of achieving transparency from the union movement.
If transparency is something that should be strived for than why do we see no transparency from the Commission itself? After all if members don’t feel their union is being transparent they can leave it. If we don’t feel the Royal Commission that taxpayers are funding is transparent can we stop paying tax?
As the previous email trail shows I cannot even get a copy of my own complaint from the Commission. This hardly inspires any confidence in this particular Royal Commissions regarding levels of transparency.
So what else are we not seeing?
The Commission calls for evidence and statements from witnesses and then collects them and goes through them.
Statements that the Commission feels suits their purposes are entered into evidence and made public, although often in censored form like that of Chris Brown and Bruce Wilson. Other statements are not made public at all.
This censorship of material that should be publicly available is used by many to highlight the possibility of the Commission knowing its final findings before it even commences and picking the evidence that suits its own agenda and keeping the rest from the public eye lest they form a different opinion. Similar to the way that the CFMEU was seemingly held accountable for a senseless crime in the aforementioned Herald Sun article.
I know of many people who have sent in witness statements that have yet to be made public and more than likely won’t in relation to the HSU matter.
With their authors permission I will publish any here that don’t receive the Commissions tick of approval. If any readers have one that they would like made public they can email them to me at wixxyleaks@gmail.com
Ask yourself what it is that Tony Abbott and his Royal Commission doesn’t want you to know about.
Is this a Royal Commission that has being set up at a huge cost to the taxpayer purely to justify a preconceived outcome?
For someone like Commissioner John Dyson Heydon AC QC who has had a distinguished career since being appointed to the bar in 1973, and appointed a Queens Counsel in 1987 it must be a disappointment to have his proceedings made a mockery of by Jackson and her cronies this late in his career.
Counsel Assisting Jeremy Stoljar SC must also have concerns regarding his reputation after repeatedly being walked over and made to look weak by Kathy Jackson each time she found herself having to answer questions she wanted to avoid when she would suddenly turn into a hostile witness and treat him with utter contempt.
Needless to say, this Royal Commission seems to be a targeted political attack that has well and truly missed its target.
The Commissions actions and what it has chosen to not to act upon, the differing treatment of witnesses, the changing practice directions, and the transparency surrounding witness statements and evidence has given those who write legal textbooks enough for several chapters of material, perhaps under the headings of Perversions Of Legal Procedure or maybe Using The Law As A Political Tool.
One thing is for sure, this Royal Commission won’t be mentioned under any heading of “Integrity”.
Since this post was published the Commissioner has made a statement re the assault discussed in the Herald Suns article I refer to in this article. This statement was made at the commencement of the hearing today 22/9/2014
The statement can be read via the below link
Commissioners Statement Re Assault
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
For All Your Video Production Needs
Congratulations on a very clear accurate report of the Royal Commission into the HSU. It is also a penetrating judgment on the proceedings with conclusions substantiated by evidence. You are continuing to show what the mainstream media’s superficial reporting misses. This makes you Australia’s most diligent investigative journalist.
Oh shit, Wixx y. These bastards are going to get away with it, aren’t they!
b’tards.
“Lawler who has the legal standing of a High Court Judge”
Federal Court Judge, I think.
How can it be that the Commission has ‘his proceedings made a mockery of by Jackson and her cronies this late in his career’ and Stoljer ‘must also have concerns regarding his reputation after repeatedly being walked over and made to look weak by Kathy Jackson each time she found herself having to answer questions she wanted to avoid when she would suddenly turn into a hostile witness and treat him with utter contempt.’
Who’s running the show? Does this suggest that the Commissioner and Stoljer are not totally committed to exposing wrong-doing wherever it can be found?
I just can’t believe I have been so naïve in my older years, thinking the judiciary was free from any political persuasion until I became one of those other people, you know, the ones who get hit by a bus or being taken by a shark, I wasn’t hit by a bus or taken by a shark but my experience was extremely traumatic that put me in that class of those other people.
There is a recurrent theme of “Why me?” and “What did I do to deserve this” and this is the preserve of those other people and those questions can never be answered.
The tail end of my traumatic experience lies in 4 courts and is outlined in an open letter to QLD Chief Justice Paul de Jersey, and titled Premier Newman and the corruption of Brisbane Judges and here is the link, http://bobrafto.wordpress.com/
So having been thru shit to try and get justice, it now appears to me that the entire judiciary, Australia wide is at the whim of politicians and Kathy Jackson will get away with it with no adverse findings but expect to have adverse findings against the unions.
galileodarwin your comment…”This makes you Australia’s most diligent investigative journalist”. I concur and add the word ‘professional’. Peter’s work initially on HSU/Jackson and now RCTU, in any countries media awards, not dominated by a right wing, Govt sympathetc, Murdoch owned media, would be recognised for those very talents and contributions to journalism exellence.
Not one investigative journalist in Australia can come within shouting distance of Peter Wicks work over the last 2 years
Brilliant Wixxy! This Royal Commission stinks to high heaven. I watched the proceedings on the day Julia fronted up, and I can’t see any way they could possibly find against her. Unlike Kathy Jackson, she fully answered all Stoljar’s nit picking Qns. My husband thinks they could be corrupt enough to find against her anyway, – to serve Abbott’s purposes. I can’t be that cynical. Without solid new evidence they’ve got no case.
Democracy, freedom and relationships are not handed to you on a plate. These are things you must fight to retain every day. Legislation can be written. Constitutions can be enshrined and carved in stone but there is no guarantee they will be with you tomorrow
These three ideals, can be eroded by neglect unless cherished. They can be taken away, unless defended. And they will become dulled, if not valued and continually improved each and every day. We must cherish, protect, and improve them each day in order to preserve them.
Neglect them and they become meaningless.
We have a duty of care to democracy, to ensure that the people have well informed with factually based options on which to make their decisions.
Truth is at the core of Democracy. Some participants in our recent election have chosen to inflame and misinform, thereby failing in their duty of care towards democracy through acts or omissions that could reasonably be seen likely to damage the very fabric of our democratic institutions.
It is longer be acceptable that political offerings can avoid scrutiny, be deceptive or misleading, or be distorted half truths and exaggerations or scandalous rumours that we have experienced that led to the Coalition victory.
Democracy, freedom and relationships are not handed to you on a plate. These are things you must fight to retain every day. Legislation can be written. Constitutions can be enshrined and carved in stone but there is no guarantee they will be with you tomorrow
These three ideals, can be eroded by neglect unless cherished. They can be taken away, unless defended. And they will become dulled, if not valued and continually improved each and every day. We must cherish, protect, and improve them each day in order to preserve them.
Neglect them and they become meaningless.
We have a duty of care to democracy, to ensure that the people have well informed with factually based options on which to make their decisions.
Truth is at the core of Democracy. Some participants in our recent election have chosen to inflame and misinform, thereby failing in their duty of care towards democracy through acts or omissions that could reasonably be seen likely to damage the very fabric of our democratic institutions.
It must no longer be acceptable that political offerings can avoid scrutiny, be deceptive or misleading, or be distorted half truths and exaggerations or scandalous rumours that we have experienced recently that led to the Coalition victory.
Well said.
Those emails & replies sum up #turc.
Not having a copy of your complaint provided on request is surely against the principles of procedural fairness / natural justice upon which our justice system is built. Gobsmacked!
Thanks for such a comprehensive account of the farcical TURC! Surely there is some opportunity to challenge procedural unfairness particularly where the rules have been changed mid inquiry? The fact that Kathy Jackson was able to behave in such a manner would be contempt of court in any judicial hearing. The legal profession should be speaking out about the lack of transparency regarding the behaviour of the Commission, and what appears to be abuse of process by some participants. Lawler should face investigation for his interference in a judicial inquiry where he clearly has a conflict of interest. Finally, I hope all who made submissions to TURC which have not been made public or dealt with release them to you for publication. Only then I fear will we see the full extent of the corruption of the Royal Commission as a legal inquiry. Of course this is just my humble opinion and I’m not a lawyer, but blind Freddy can see this is rotten.
I’m laughing at this Royal Commission, it’s a joke! Jackson must also be laughing thinking ‘phew, that was easy – I’m off the hook”
This is just as laughable as Ashbygate and also Abbott’s secret slush fund to destroy One Nation….how come the “baddies” always seem to win???????
Shaking my head, this even though it shouldn’t be, has been expected. Disgusts me that one woman can steal so many low income earners money and do with it what she pleases whilst not having to answer to anyone, and then a total mockery can be made of a royal commission that should have exposed this is its fullest by the same woman ……. simply amazing, I have to ask just what is it that she has on those who are covering her arse ?????
Angie,
[ This is just as laughable as Ashbygate and also Abbott’s secret slush fund to destroy One Nation….how come the “baddies” always seem to win??????? ]
It’s because they are far more desperate & ruthless! To play fair & be honest is seen by them as a weakness that must be exploited even if there is no particular benefit to them.
They exploit this weakness just because they can.