Once upon a time, not that long ago in fact, the name Kathy Jackson could not be said enough times for the Coalition, the name in Coalition ranks was synonymous with everything they claimed to stand for.

This of course was back in the days when the HSU saga was working in the Liberal Party’s favour and they felt comfortable hitching the Coalitions credibility to Kathy Jackson’s integrity, ignoring the allegations against her.

Back then Eric Abetz couldn’t find enough glowing words to say about her, in fact every time he spoke of her it looked like his head was going to explode with pride, he spoke of her like she was the daughter he’d just adopted. George Brandis too, as Attorney General and as Shadow AG has spoken about Jackson with admiration and a glint in his eye many a time.

Christopher Pyne has piled the praise on her, and Prime Minister Tony Abbott has referred to her as heroic and brave amongst other glowing accolades on many occasions when opposition leader.

Jackson was lauded by the shock-jocks, hailed a hero by the right-wing commentators and was even the guest of honour at a HR Nicholls Society event which she happily attended as the guest of the architects of WorkChoices, something the unions had fought long and hard against.

In the eyes of the Coalition, Jackson could do no wrong.

Cosying up with Kathy...

Cosying up with Kathy…

Not only that, Jackson was engaged to be married into a family considered Liberal Party royalty, the Lawlers. Michael her fiancée as the Tony Abbott appointed Vice President of Fair Work Australia, his brother John Lawler was then CEO of the Australian Crime Commission and their father Sir Peter Lawler a senior staffer to PM Robert Menzies and Australia’s first Ambassador to the Holy See (The Vatican), a family with strong ties to both Opus Dei and the Liberal Party.

How things have changed…

The Coalition have seemingly turned on Kathy quicker than you can say “James Ashby”.

In question time on the 28th October Christopher Pyne acting on Eric Abetz’s behalf as the Minister for Employment was throwing allegations at Anthony Albanese regarding the CMFEU when Labor MP Rob Mitchell made a comment about the Liberals allegiance to Kathy Jackson, at which point the Speaker Bronwyn Bishop interjected.


The SPEAKER: Whoever made that comment will withdraw.

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: in what way is the name ‘Kathy Jackson’ unparliamentary?

The SPEAKER: Because it was reflecting on another member. I said: whoever made the comment will withdraw the comment.


It seems now that the name Kathy Jackson is something the Coalition now find offensive when used in parliament, quite a turnaround.

I spoke to Rob Mitchell about the comment that had so greatly offended and its context.

Christopher Pyne had been trying to portray Albanese and the Labor Party as directly linked to the CFMEU, so Rob retorted with

“Thanks Kathy Jackson”

Apparently the Coalition that could not align themselves with her enough now think it is a huge insult to be linked with her and Speaker Bronwyn Bishop was having none of it.

In Victoria as part of their campaign the Liberal Party have launched a website featuring Tony Abbott’s heroic woman.

The endorsed Liberal Party campaign propaganda

The endorsed Liberal Party campaign propaganda

The website is titled “Which Dodgy Character Will Turn Up At Labor’s Launch” and it features a number of people that the Victorian Liberal Party view as dodgy. One of those on the Coalitions “Dodgy” list is Kathy Jackson, whom the Victorian Liberal party describe like this:

“Health Services Union Secretary, Kathy Jackson, is alleged to have grossly misused union credit cards, cash cheques and general accounts and made unauthorised payments of over $1 million which workers are now trying to recover. These funds belonged to low paid, hardworking health workers.

Since the main stream media have started to see Jackson’s true colours the Liberal Party have tried to distance themselves from her, first by ignoring anything to do with her, and now mentioning her name is “unparliamentary” and Liberals in Victoria label her “dodgy” and seem to accuse her of being  a thief.

Meanwhile despite it being suddenly open season on Jackson, the man supporting and advising her and somone who is also heavily involved, Michael Lawler, has so far been given a free pass while the taxpayer pays his hefty wages.

Today Tony Abbott announced a joint police task force between Victorian and Federal police that has been hailed as a union busting taskforce targeting alleged union corruption and standover tactics.

Those with high hopes that this will also be targeting Kathy Jackson and her faction will be disappointed to know that this taskforce has been set up to deliberately avoid Jackson and the HSU and to target the CFMEU and the building industry.

Tony Abbott last year as most would be aware has reintroduced Knighthoods to Australia.

One of the last people to receive a knighthood before they were abolished was Sir Peter Lawler, who is said to be a close friend of Tony Abbott’s father. I wonder if this had any bearing on Abbott’s decision.

Kathy's future in-laws, Sir Peter and Lady Mary Lawler

Kathy’s future in-laws, Sir Peter and Lady Mary Lawler

Sir Peter is also Patron of the Australian Family Association, a right-wing Christian lobby group, and in 1986 was given the papal honour of Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Pius IX, a papal knighthood.

Currently Sir Peter Lawler’s future daughter in law Kathy is in a psychiatric hospital and when she emerges will face Federal Court for $1.4 Million in member’s funds she is alleged to have misappropriated, and will then likely face criminal charges.

I wonder if she’ll refer to Sir Peter  and Lady Mary as Mum and Dad.



Save Wixxy from his own budget crisis by donating here

Shirts Ad pic





Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here







For All Your Video Production Needs

For All Your Video Production Needs




31 thoughts on “We Used To Be Friends – The Liberals dump on Kathy Jackson

  1. “she is alleged to have misappropriated, and will then likely face criminal charges.

    I wonder if she’ll refer to Sir Peter and Lady Mary as Mum and Dad.”

    That’s probably selection criteria 1&2 satisfied in the application to join the LNP

  2. Never heard her mentioned on the Abbott/Napthine grab on the ABC radio news this morning announcing a police taskforce to bring criminal charges on evidence collected by the Royal Commission. Hope a gutsy reporter asked Abbott if KJ was to be investigated!

  3. She will most likely spill the beans on a CFMEU delegate, have her name cleared as an undercover H R Nichols spy then Mick and Kath will get their Sirhoods and live happily ever after.
    You heard it here first.

  4. Just saw this in the Herald Scum
    “The taskforce will look solely at criminal conduct and will not examine union governance issues, such as misuse of credit cards or slush funds.”

  5. Would any of this come to light without your efforts, Peter? I was going to write that what you have done is truly heroic, but it’s not really – it’s just using your investigative skills and adhering to the standards which are meant to be applied by all journalists. And for that you certainly deserve the highest recognition.

    Good morning, Kate McClymont. Good to see you keeping up.

  6. Thank you for theis Wixxy and I said myself a long time ago that when she has served one purpose she`ll serve up another for the HR Nicholls Society and their Liberal vehicle.
    Charity Shags and where`s Smithy?
    Lawler not arounth to look pithy
    Her lagal defence team know exactly how much they can fleece her for and then its turfed out on your neck girl,sans knickers.
    The Karmatic part is Cathy may just really end up in one of the No4 public psyche wards,only not voluntarily.
    Come on Craig,win your appeal to put butter on out hot toast mate.

  7. They’ll do & spend what it takes to protect Jackson, up to a point. And since they’re natural born bastards & the money comes from the taxpayers that point’s a fair way off.
    But if & when it becomes necessary she’ll be gone in an instant, just another rorting UNIONIST!!!!!.
    Slight discrepancies between different liberal branches evident now with Kathy’s name on that election poster. But not even allowed to be mentioned in parliament.
    But an interesting snippet from wirilda just there. This latest inquisition seems to’ve been worked out around her.

  8. The taskforce is only looking into the CFMEU and the building industry, intentionally avoiding Jackson

  9. Thanks very much, I’m not heroic at all, but some of my sources would fit in that category

  10. Let’s hope that Labor win in Victoria and broaden the Vic side of the task force to cover it…

  11. If only Craig Thomson can finally prove his innocence. I have always been of the opinion that both he and Peter Slipper were set up, to get rid of Labor. Thank you Peter for your dedication to the truth. There are not many media outlets left that will conduct investigative journalism these days, just employ biased opinion-writers. This Government is so divisive, so manipulative, so brazen (as to stand their ground when found out in lies and distortions), and yet the public do not rise up and demand their dismissal. How do you overcome the Murdoch/NewsCorps influence of the biased reporting and lies which for the majority is the only means of news/current affairs, politics?

    It seems Abbot & Co will again get away with their selective witch hunts, to go on to bigger and much more nasty business for Australia.

  12. Well done, Wixxy. I really hope Jackson, Lawler and a host of Libs get their just desserts. Problem is, I don’t believe in God or Karma. Too many evil people go to the grave without answering for their deeds and, I hate to say it, but this corrupt, cunning and deceitful “charity shagger” is one of the slickest. I’m not a defeatist but nothing that has happened since these coalition fools took power has restored my faith in natural justice. I REALLY hope I’m wrong!

  13. Even if Jackson is kept ‘hidden’ & gets special ‘protection’ from Abbott, her name is now mud and always will be. This woman will be recognised as a THIEF forever & social media will make sure she’s ruined. My question is Who in the Labor Party will be able to outsmart Abbott and the way HE runs Australia’s biggest protection racket for his own kind? Come on guys…we are waiting for you to take charge!

  14. Bensab3 how true, can remember in question time when Abbott was saying what a wonderful person Kathy Jackson was, for being honest and stopping the coruption in the Unions, whilst he was running Craig Thomson into the ground , it will come back to bite him especially with Ashbly, there were a heap of the coalition involved it that…. to be continued

  15. You would think that scumbag Michael Lawler’s position would be untenable by now.

    With the Abbott and other Liberal governments credibility severely leaking at the seams, I’m very surprised they haven’t been doing all they can to quietly ditch Lawler.

    As for that harridan Bronnie Bishop (the single most biased parliamentary Speaker ever and forever linked to kerosene baths), she should be put out to pasture asap. She is a national disgrace.

    The mainstream media should be having an absolute field day with nearly every aspect of the Abbott government……….but they’re nowhere to be seen.

    Turdoch pays Channel 10 to inflict Dolt upon us every Sunday afternoon.

    Why can’t we pass the hat around and do something to nationally expose these slime for what they are?

    I hate to say it, but Shorten just does not seem to be cutting through.

  16. Wonderful Peter as usual.Both Peter Slipper and Craig Thomsons Lives and careers ruined .When you compare Kathy Jackson it is unbelievable.About time Labor started hitting back.

  17. If nothing else, surely there’s enough material in Ashby-Slipper-Pyne-Thomson-Jackson-Lawler et al for Labor to call a RC when they are returned to power. SURELY!!

  18. Michael Smith is pathetic. Following release of Jeremy Stoljar’s submissions late this afternoon, there is Smith trumpeting on his news website that “Wayne Hem, Ralph Blewitt and Athol James were right” in relation to Julia Gillard being a beneficiary of illicit payments made to Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt. Yet Michael Smith does not see fit to mention that Jeremy Stoljar, although criticising Gillard’s professionalism as a solicitor, did not find she had potentially breached the Crimes Act.

    At the same time, Michael Smith remains totally silent about the fact that Stoljar has recommended Smith’s “close friend”, and Michael Lawler’s supposed “fiancée”, Kathy Jackson, be referred to Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation of possible breaches of Section 81 and Section 82 of the Crimes Act 1958. Each of these sections carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in gaol. Jackson admitted in evidence to the Royal Commission that she had falsified the list of “reimbursements” that caused the Peter McCallum Hospital to pay Jackson’s HSU#3 branch $250,000 (the “Peter Mac” money). In making these admissions, Jackson laid herself open to charges of obtaining money and property by deception – both serious breaches of the Crimes Act.

    So, Michael Smith, how are you going to spin this one? I suppose it would be too much to expect you would issue a public apology to Bob Kernohan and the other loyal and faithful followers who supported you financially and emotionally during your hard times? But I suppose you and your sheeple followers can always resort to the line that the Royal Commission has lost its way and is merely persecuting your beloved Kathy. What you and your remaining supporters seem oblivious to is that your whistle-blowing heroine and “close friend”, Kathy Jackson, has long since lost her pea, and her whistle no longer makes a noise. You are on the public record as staking your professional reputation on Kathy Jackson’s integrity. You backed the wrong horse, Michael Smith, and your judgement and reputation now lie in tatters.

    Julia Gillard once asked in Parliament “who is Michael Smith?” A very good question!

  19. Julia Gillard so far gets off (pending the final report of Justice Heydon), but looks like a very slack lawyer who received stolen funds. That however pales into insignificance beside the recommendation that Kathy Jackson be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions over the Peter Mac affair. I would say the charges were long ago drawn up, awaiting action. What is galling however is to read the “Whistleblower’s” section that says Jackson has “paid a high price” (hello, all those OS trips coinciding with withdrawals out of the NHDA fund!). Counsel assisting don’t seem to have admitted the possibility that her whistleblowing was a cynical and doomed attempt to save her own skin, once she knew the game was up because of the agitation of others such as Rosemary Kelly and the No.2 branch; did Mr Stoljar not admit the possibility that she sort to ditch on the other HSU crooks, then take control herself, in the ultimate roll of the dice?

    No matter, charges aplenty will follow.

  20. Kate is befouling the Olle name tonight with the Olle lecture. How embarrassing that will be for all and sundry.

  21. Yes, Duchy, you are totally correct in your assessment of Kathy Jackson’s whistleblowing. I have long argued that Jackson’s “heroic” whistleblowing was simply a falling out between thieves. And, as is well and widely known, there is no honour among thieves. I hope Justice Heydon sees fit to reject, or at least modify, the submission of Counsel Assisting in this regard.

  22. I think it is premature for the media (and commentators generally) to speak about individuals (Julia Gillard and others) as “getting off” following publication of Jeremy Stoljar’s submissions. It is important for us to remember that this Royal Commission is about investigating trade union governance and corruption. It is not about investigating individuals. Therefore not all evidence relevant to investigating individuals will have been led and explored in the context of Justice Heydon’s Royal Commission. The really important thing is going to be what happens next.

    For instance, Victoria Police has been investigating Julia Gillard as a “person of interest” for more than eighteen months now. Not all the evidence gathered by Victoria Police was submitted to, and/or considered by, the Heydon Royal Commission. The fact that Jeremy Stoljar submits Julia Gillard does not appear to have breached the Crimes Act 1958 is of limited interest, and does not count in a definitive sense. What will count is what Victoria Police concludes about Julia Gillard. Stoljar made his judgement on the basis or evidence presented before the Royal Commission. Victoria Police will make their judgement based on evidence they have gathered. Julia Gillard is not yet “off the hook”.

    Having said that, I find it instructive and significant that, on the basis of the limited evidence before him, Jeremy Stoljar was able to submit Kathy Jackson appears to have breached the Crimes Act 1958. Julia Gillard might not be off the hook, but she appears to be in an infinitely better position than Kathy Jackson! The irony is that Michael Smith lodged the original complaint to Victoria Police that resulted in Julia Gillard being investigated as a “person of interest”. Yet, it is Smith’s own “close friend”, Kathy Jackson, who is now very much in the firing line. Unbelievable.

  23. Hi Peter, I believe Lady Mary passed away in 2013. How do the shock jocks explain their acceptance of Kathy Jackson as a hero, then when she is accused of a crime,suddenly stop talking about her as if she never existed? Can’t say they compromised their integrity as they have never had any, ever.

  24. Dear Wixxy- I did some interesting research. Sir Peter Lawler was , in fact,
    – past President of the Canberra Branch of the Australian Labor Party
    – was appointed a permanent departmental head by Gough Whitlam.
    – was a lifelong friend of legendary Labor politician Fred Daly
    – was a longtime mentor to a young politician called Paul Keating
    – was appointed Australian Ambassador to Ireland and the Vatican by Bob Hawke.
    – Has never been a member of the Liberal Party
    His wife did die in July 2013.
    Sir Peter Lawler is currently 93 years of age so why not sink the “keyboard boot” into him and his deceased wife.
    But hey! – why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

  25. In his career he was associated with both sides of politics indeed. You may have also discovered that he is a lifelong friend of Tony Abbott’s father also, something you neglected to mention.

    I have not sunk the boot in to anyone other than Michael Lawler and Kathy Jackson. The only person I recall sinking the boot in to someone deceased was Abbott’s mate and conservative hero Alan Jones when referring to Julia Gillards recently deceased father.

    If anything I was saying that Peter Lawler and his wife are people of great integrity, I fail to see how that is putting in the “keyboard boot” as you put it.

    My point is that the behaviour of their son and future daughter in law is nothing to be proud of…

    My story was not meant to be a biography of Sir Peter Lawler, so I’m sure there is lots about his life that I have neglected to put in, however that does not make the article untruthful. I note you make that accusation without pointing out a single thing that you deem incorrect.

  26. Okay – Lets start out with your first incorrect statement where you attempt to link Sir Peter Lawler with Mr Abbott. Having contacted Sir Peter Lawler himself I am informed he has met Mr Abbott Senior ONCE in his life for some 2 minutes and outside of that has had no contact with the man – by any means.

    I would call that a big incorrect.

    Either the distinguished 93 year old is lying or your “sources” have led you astray. I’m sure you check your sources validity so I will be only to happy to stand corrected. I am sure you can cite your evidence.

    Another BIG incorrect would be the reference to Lady Lawler in present tense. How hurtful can you be AND how sloppy a journalist that you wouldn’t check the status of a person included in the article. Or are you, in your sarcastic, insinuating style, going to twist this into being about Jackson, Michael Lawler and Tony Abbott – and bugger the innocent collateral damage.

    Sir Peter Lawler was recognised for his endless years of service to this country – by both sides of politics. For you to refer to his deceased wife as still being alive speaks volumes for your ability as a journalist and your sensitivity to innocent humanity.

    I have re-read the article and fail to see where you have said “Peter Lawler and his wife are people of great integrity”. You have not. I see no acknowledgement of Sir Peter’s contribution to the Australian Labor Party. I see no acknowledgement of his efforts to overturn the White Australia Policy or fight for Aboriginal equality. No – a journalist like you mentioned he was Christian (and therefore by your logic Right Wing), a Papal Knight and some association with Opus Dei. I suppose it would not have suited your motives to mention anything that may have provided balance and an accurate overall picture.

    Why is there any reference to Sir Peter Lawler in your story at all? What is the relevance?

    Twist it any way you want – just have the class to research properly and not offend esteemed and innocent individuals by pretending their deceased spouses are, in fact, still alive.

  27. Wixxy – your may also wish to cite your source claiming Sir Peter was a “founder” of the Australian Family Association. I note that for a period he was a Patron (along with tennis great Margaret Court) but cannot find any evidence to confirm he was a founder of the “Right wing Christian organisation”.

    You asked me to point out what was incorrect – that’s three things as far as I am aware. But hey – I stand to be corrected.

    I also suppose if offending people whom have recently lost loved ones is part of your repertoire then you do share something in common with Alan Jones – yet you have placed your insensitive ignorance on the Public Record. Congratulations!

  28. OK Sir Peter Lawler was a patron of the Association, that was an error and I’m happy to amend that.

    So as for you “being informed” I will take the word of my sources any day over somebody anonymously commenting on a website such as yourself

    You state “Either the distinguished 93 year old is lying or your “sources” have led you astray”, or perhaps it is you that is lying.

    The article was about Michael Lawler, I have not insulted anybody else or claimed someone who has died is still alive, you are putting words in my mouth and I don’t appreciate it.

    My point is that the Lawlers are a respectable family who I would think may be dismayed by the company Michael is choosing to keep.

    If you think that is an insult to Sir Peter or the memory of Lady Mary then you are delusional.

  29. Peter – any primary educated English student would realise that when you quote someone they have had to actually write or state the quoted text. Nowhere in my posts have I used the words “being informed”. That is poor English and poor journalism. At least you acknowledged that you were incorrect when you stated Sir Peter Lawler was a founder of the Australian Family Association. I note you have corrected the error and deleted the reference to an association with Opus Dei.

    I stated that my source that refuted Sir Peter Lawler was a lifelong friend of Tony Abbott’s father was Sir Peter Lawler himself. I have put up! You haven’t cited your source because no such source exists. Sir Peter Lawler is not anonymous. Your alleged source is.

    In your typical sarcastic, insinuating style you have thrown the smoke screen that ” perhaps it is you that are lying” Why, and for what reason, would I be lying on this point. I invite you to ring Sir Peter or Tony Abbott Snr yourself. I am not arguing about Jackson, Lawler Junior or Tony Abbott. I am simply questioning the validity of your statements concerning Sir Peter and Mr Abbott Senior – and the malicious claim that they are lifelong friends. Sorry Peter – just admit you are wrong again and apologise.

    You have written that the Lawler family is considered to be “Liberal Party Royalty”. You are claiming that. That is a LIE. Research indicates neither Sir Peter Lawler nor any of his family have ever been members or electoral campaign donors of the Liberal Party. Sir Peter was infact a past president of the Canberra branch of the Australian Labor Party – but you don’t dare mention that. It does not suit your intended purpose.

    Peter – nowhere have you stated in your article that “Sir Peter and his wife are people of great integrity”. You had the opportunity to indicate his service to Australia and the Australian Labor Party. But you aligned him with everything you loathe in Australian Society whether it be true or not – Christians, Right wing lobby groups, Tony Abbott and Papists. How dare you suggest that you actually meant to indicate that Sir Peter and his wife were people of great integrity. You do everything in your poisonous pen style to belittle and offend Sir Peter Lawler then claim in your reply that your point is the Lawler’s are a respectable family. That makes you, Peter Wicks, a hypocrite!

    Now to quote you correctly you wrote ” I wonder if she’ll refer to Sir Peter and Lady Mary as Mum and Dad”. You indicate Lady Mary is alive. That is just poor research and poor journalism. I’m not putting words in your mouth. Your foot is already in there. You, rightly, made much of Alan Jones using Julia Gillards recently deceased father in a vial attempt at humour – yet you have the same repertoire yourself. Given Lady Lawler was deceased when you wrote the aforementioned statement nothing but offence can be taken from it.

    You, Peter, owe Sir Peter Lawler an unreserved apology.

    P.S. Readers – ifyou logically and clearly out point Peter Wicks he bars your posts and replies. Hence the new email address Peter. In case you delete this post I have copied it – so as to post it on other blogs and websites to demonstrate what sort of a journalist, individual and human being you are.

  30. I said I would correct the founder claim as it was incorrect, I have not taken down anything relating to Opus Dei at all, but never mind you just make it up as you go… you like to put words in my mouth and now you are trying to say I’m deleting the words that you put in there.

    I have better things to do with my time than debate people like you, clipping my toenails for example comes ahead of you…

    I have no need to tell you or anyone else my sources.

    You accuse me of lying although I say what I say using my real name and image, not a made up name from a toll email account.

    To most people, you being the obvious exception my article was about Michael Lawler and Kathy Jackson. I put in the part about Sir Peter and Lady Mary to show the apparent different moral standards. I don’t need to say they are people of great integrity it is implied and I have never said a bad thing about Sir Peter or Lady Mary.

    You continually claim I refer to her as if she is alive, I don’t. People still refer to their mum or dad after they have passed, although I note all the way through your comments you seem to refer to her in present tense as well.

    I have not attempted to belittle or offend Sir Peter, all I did was give some of his history, if you think his being an ambassador or his work with Australian Family Association is belittling than that is your claim not mine.

    Alan Jones was a completely different matter, he referred directly to to the death of Gillards father, as you point out I have not mentioned the death of Lady Mary.

    As for what I put on my site, you are lucky I put these up, sites like Michael Smith’s do not allow things to go up unless he agree’s with it. However, I will not be told what to write by you or anyone else, I don’t care what you say about me on other sites, I’m sure I’ve had worse.

    I’m not censoring what you say, I’m stopping you from saying it on my site and I will block this email address after this also as I won’t have words put in my mouth or have a gutless troll try and threaten to defame me online if I don’t write what he says…

    I rarely block people, but someone who continually attempts to put words in my mouth I will not tolerate on my own site, and I have not deleted any of your posts, however I will not be allowing any more to go up on my site.

Leave a Reply