Justice Dyson Heydon, a legal professional with I expect a number of legal degrees with years of experience. A man whose employment tasks are to provide legal advice to other people. Justice Dyson Heydon, undergoing a Royal Commission proceedings on trade union corruption, trade unions being part of the Labor party. A Justice of the law, undergoing a political party royal commission process, would have known any association with an opposing political party, The Liberal Party, by agreeing to speak at a Liberal party event, would have lent credence of political bias, by attending Liberal Party functions.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-18/dyson-heydon-labor-flags-asking-governor-general-to-sack-him/6706740

The media scandal that points out the Justice's Liberal party bias, is one more display of separation between parties, democratic political process transparency in action. One more political scandal that eventually fades away, no one goes to jail.

Political and legal systems in dysfunctional process are:
*Entertaining to many people, in that seeing the big wigs embarrassed.
*Confirming people's own intelligence, creating opportunities to make negative judgements towards dysfunctional systems.
*To many people, political scandals reinforces democratic transparency.

The obvious understanding even to the simplest thinking Australian citizen allows the scandal, who would have judged the scandal as real evidence of transparent democracy in action, to be thought of by myself, as being contrived to reinforce ideas that Australian democratic political parties are independent from each other. The media and the justice system are also independent from political parties and to each other, allowing democracy to appear real.

The above website scandal readings focus on legal proceedings, title names: Law Council; Attorney General; Govern General; High Court Judge; the title “Justice” is used several times.

Can you recognise propaganda when you read propaganda?

.....................

My other focus, is on whistle blowers that don't fare well in media stories: Julian Assange; Edward Snowden; and the best known of all persecuted whistle blowers... Jesus.
The same people capable of recognising propaganda can recognise media stories after whistle blower stories true meaningful intentions are made known by media. Media's continued mentioning of whistle blowers listed above, I believe stops other peoples whistle blower comments.

The entire thing is a blatant attempt by Labor and the unions to take the heat off an enquiry into suspected wrongdoings of the union. It is my understanding that, once a Royal Commission is begun, it cannot be stopped by anyone other than the Queen or her representative.

Would that happen? Will we see another GG Kerr moment?

I also understand that the Commissioner himself will hear the matter brought up by Labor and its union cronies. I wonder if it is also possible for him to rule that his detractors are in contempt of the Commission. I certainly hope so. This is the most scurrilous, the most vile attack on the rule of law ever perpetrated by a political party. Much worse than the Whitlam affair where the GG acted and against an incompetent government leader. Here we are

talking about an independent officer of the law and court being used as a political football

to interfere with a Royal Commission investigsating alleged criminal activity.

This bit of garbage shows there is no morality left in the Labor party.

Everyone knows the true facts of this story, & the faux outrage displayed by our lefties merely displays their lack of integrity in all things.

From this attempt to try to hide the immorality of union leaders, & left politicians generated by those unions, to their immoral attempt to work their way to world government with lefty academics & the UN using the now totally disproven global warming scam.

We saw it with the Hindmarsh Island scam, & with the Murray Darling commission, that they will use any lie they think they can get away with to buy a vote, even green votes.

Yes I know there are a huge number of good people who refuse to see this in it's entirety, because so much of their belief is embedded in what Labor once was. Well sorry folks, the apples left in the barrel are now totally rotten, & you need to surface & actually look at what Labor, mixed with & contaminated by green has become.

There is not a much more obvious example of their duplicity than this one. Open your eyes & learn.

Since the French Revolution, I expect ruling classes to pay more attention to propaganda. The value of propaganda can be seen on documentaries relating to 1930s and 40s Germany, under Adolf Hitler's dictatorship. Educating children and conditioning children and adults using media stories to induce people to believe what they're told.

One tactic would be to allow people to continuously judge an open transparent government.

Another tactic, where many years ago, knowing your place in society as a down trodden peasant, causing resentment to the hierarchy, by the working class. By embarrassing people in politically powerful positions, the down trodden feel equal by enjoying the laughter at powerful people's expense.

A third tactic, has a media showing continued advancement in science; space exploration; medical cures. Where supporting the church because the church was in control of the magic, praying to god, the afterlife. Capitalist economic system finances science advancement.
Creating fearful scenarios like global warming distraction from more obvious now problems.

Adolf Hitler blamed the loss of the first world war, leading to US$200 Billion war reparations on a world Jewish conspiracy.

The value of a voting democracy depends on the quality of a thinking education. Education does not teach children to think. Education prevents children from experiencing thought by distracting children with prescribed learning criteria that has little to do with thinking out problems.
Any pretend thinking is punished with mental stress negative reinforcement.
Education, up to HSC is a working class labourers education. Universities except the least non-thinking repressing learning traumatised brains and selectively allows reading material to program limited thinking skills devoted to students chosen profession.

What most people believe is based on years of; scandals; transparency exposures; embarrassing political cartoons; a belief that a citizenry voting political selection system is honest. The only evidence that everything is real is an emotional stimulated belief that if something was false, the media would inform the public of any falsifying behaviours.

I am saying, through a traumatic, repressed education, people believe what they want to believe. People want to believe what allows them to feel safe, secure, moving forward, becoming rich, living for ever.
To be told something that opposes what people want to believe, has education's repressive learning traumas prompted to awareness, emotionally felt as being incorrect.

Periodically, economic supposed free market forces has people's accumulated savings lost to investments. The years of believed propaganda has few thoughts experienced, allowing prompted ideas that the many economic tragedies are intentional. Not saying they are intentional, only saying that most people's prompted memories lack an ability to doubt their own constantly reinforced accumulated beliefs.

I often say, “if to prove many beliefs are induced lies, first prove that education is conditioning people to believe what they're told”.

Sorry, Steve, but the only "embarrassment" being caused is that bouncing back onto the union and socialist thugs themselves. They are acting like small children too young to know right from wrong - throwing themselves to the floor, kicking and screaming when they don't get their own way.

Only yesterday, one of these close allies of Labor was ordered to repay $1.4 million back to the union she stole it from. One of her close union colleagues is already in jail for similar criminal offences. I sincerely hope that the former mention does jail time as well.

The Labor Party, as it now is, has already proved to be associated with criminals, and it is desperate to limit the "embarrassment" by meddling withdue process and smearing a Royal Commissioner - unbelievable and unheard of until now. There will be an ugly stain on theLabor brand forever.

More consoling amongst the Abbott worshippers that should make you feel better.
The judge is supposed to be impartial that is what is on trial. Abbott believers say he is not corrupted by any means. Labor say he has bias tendencies. Who is correct is the question. That is why the commotion, so who will win is the man corrupt or not.

Saying that he is squeaky clean by one side only does not make him clear of corruption. So let the GG make his decision, if he is not a liberal plant as well that is.

That other female was in your favor when Thomson was on trial, so that is your bias.

Haydon certainly has got it in front of him hasn’t he. Especially being appointed by Abbott’s captain pick to head the royal commission into union corruption.
You must admit his tenure is on tender hooks. He was on the panel to award Abbott his Rhodes scholar certificate, he also signed up for a liberal party fund raiser. That is enough to judge the man on, even if it is by himself which is not a good look, in any case he will be judged by the voters of AU.
Firstly given Abbott’s impeccable wisdom at being a Rhodes scholar, or was that a corruption of the selection panel. In any case Abbott may have thought he owes Haydon a favor. Hence the 88 million $ royal commission.
The second case is did Haydon show political bias by signing up for a liberal party fund raiser. For a man of great pride in being a former crown judge, he should not have any trouble defining his own judgments made in accepting his role in Abbott’s Royal Commission into union corruption.
Seeing this royal commission is seen by many as an Abbott attempt to smear union involvement, and link it to the labor party. Corruption is a very serious subject, and should be held with the most impartial of persons that can be judged to be worthy of such a position

doof,

You are sounding very much like the stereotypical Roman Catholic bishop arguing against the Royal commission into child abuse.

Remember the, 'If the bishops have nothing to fear they shouldn't be objecting to scrutiny'?

Willie Shorten, Penny Wong and others are demonstrating exactly why the public should have very little confidence in their principles and ethics and their capacity to act for the benefit of all, not just the shadowy union factions that refuse to allow rank and file members to decide Labor policy and leadership.

Heydon has adjourned and it will be interesting to read his decision. However, at this stage I very much doubt that the expensive silks being paid out of union members subs will go within a bull's roar of "demonstrating that a ‘fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question that the judge is required to decide’ (the ‘reasonable apprehension of bias test’)".

It has been scurrilous smear campaign.

Dear Steve,

I don't quite get what all the fuss is about here -
except for the politics of it all - of course.

As Julian Burnside QC pointed out some time ago -
a Justice and a brilliant lawyer would never have
agreed to speaking at a Party Fund Raiser if he was
investigating the opposing party's affairs. The
perception would of course be - a conflict of interests.

Burnside believes that the Justice was not aware that
it was a political party fund-raiser at which he was to speak.
I tend to agree with Burnside. As soon as the Justice found
out he withdrew from attending.

I do feel that Labor is using all of this for political gain.
This is the unfortunate state of affairs of our current
political scenario.

Here's a good one...

"The royal commission into trade union corruption has been accused of failing to release all relevant information its commissioner Dyson Heydon received from the organiser of a Liberal Party event he had agreed to address.

John Agius, the barrister representing the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union in an application for Mr Heydon to disqualify himself from head of the royal commission, made an explosive allegation that an email released by the commission on Monday had been "doctored".

He said a reference in the email of August 12 to attachments, including one on political donation compliance, had been deleted from a version of the email released to unions on Monday. But he later appeared to withdraw the accusation after it was explained to him that the emails were part of a chain and that the reference had dropped off.

The barrister representing the ACTU, Robert Newlinds expressed concern that he had not received all relevant documents on Monday as promised.

"Boy, you've got to be confident when you tell someone that they've got all the documents and you were wrong when you told me that, and there's no explanation for how that could have happened," Mr Newlinds said."

"Mr Agius said earlier he was concerned that the information released on Monday was "at best a partial disclosure, if not a disclosure of a doctored document which had been edited to remove the reference to state donation".

The full email "makes clear that connected with the invitation to the Barwick lecture was a state donation compliance requirement which clearly identifies the function as one which might be called a fundraiser".

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/trade-unions-royal-commission-accused-of-not-releasing-all-documents-relevant-to-dyson-heydons-invite-to-liberal-event-20150820-gj3qk2.html#ixzz3jPvX9asY

Poirot, I don't know why you bother writing such long posts.
I think everyone knows what you are going to say and then don't bother.
I look at the signature and then read the next post.
I suspect many other do also.

Any bias one way or another by the commissioner is irrelevant, we workers didn't need a Royal Commission to tell us that the union hierarchy is infested with gangsters and that the organisers and officials answer to bona fide, silk suit wearing Mafia Dons.

If Dyson stands down, where are they going to find a suitable legal
man who has never spoken to a politician, never had anything to do
with trade unions or employers or government of any kind ?

Imagine they find a lawyer who is a member of the Labour Party and
he accepts the job, will the Labour party object because he is
connected to the Labour Party ? I think not.

Imagine they find a lawyer who represented an employer at some time in
the past will they object ? Maybe.

Imagine they found a lawyer who had agreed to speak at a Labour
Lawyers function but withdrew from attending when he was appointed to
the commission. Would they object ?
I'll bet they would not !

Face facts, it is a classical intimidation rumpus, it is just a way
to try and save the boys.
If the unions are innocent, well some have already been convicted,
any lawyer would get them off.

The whole exaggerated performance is no more than a GUILTY plea !

Blow it out yer ear, Bazz.

That post was almost wholly a copy and paste...took two minutes to post.

(Who gives a toss which posts you do or don't read - not me:)

It is revealing that Shorten is still bare-knuckles attacking the credibility of Dyson Heydon while he is adjournment considering the attack mounted against him, ie have the union silks demonstrated that,

a ‘fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question that the judge is required to decide’ (the ‘reasonable apprehension of bias test’)".

It will be interesting to observe the ABC's reporting in between and after the decision.

For years the regressive media ignored Gillard slush fund, Shortens rape allegation and Thomson prostitutes. I suspect more press. Was given to Abbott punching the air 40 years ago. Now they want to hide what everyone knows about the unions. The usual people who are paid by the taxpayer will try and defend the indefensible. The. Conservatives have a lot to answer for. Howard should of privatised the ABC/sbs who are just a mouthpiece for regressive lies

Haydon has crapped in his own nest, by going near a liberal fund raiser when he is supposed to be neutral. Plain and simple. I can only suggest we get someone that will toe the line with what is in front of him. This job was meant to be restrictive, that is why the millions Dyson is being paid. His assistant gets 17 million for the term of the Royal commission.

How would it look if a judge went out with his bikie gang mates while he was hearing a murder by one of the bikers.

You conservative galloots need to have a good look at yourselves. Abbott stands by Dyson same as he did with Bishop. That sort of a statement alone has a bias about it, seeing he was hand picked by Abbott just like he did with the GG and Bishop.

Well Runner, now the ABC can explain why it chose to ignore all the evidence of the corruption of Kathy Jackson that it was sent over the last couple of years, as well as the implications of political interference in the (politicised) Victorian Police Force by George Brandis and the staged phony arrest of Thomson arranged between Abbott and the media to coincide with his (over-botoxed) media conference.

Then the Telegraph can confess to using photoshop to present faked "evidence" and printing known lies for the same reason. Unfortunately the picture has since been mysteriously taken down from it's web site after it's work had been done.

You actually pay more for the "free" press than for the ABC but only one side is ever subjected to scrutiny.

doog, "How would it look if a judge went out with his bikie gang mates"

A ridiculous false comparison not worthy of rebuttal.

Worth noting though that you are undoubtedly thinking of the Queensland Labor government headed by Anastacia Palazcuck, that won votes from dubious quarters by promising along with the Greens to remove the anti-outlawbikie arrangements that are working so successfully in Queensland.

You would not be surprised either to find that now Labor Premier Palazcuck in in office and leading a marginal government, she has made removing that anti-OMG arrangements the number 1 priority, having already set up a review.

Just another 1% stooge who couldn't lie straight in bed.
Just like all the others in the lieing lieberal party.
Seriously lieing is the ONLY thing this government and its supporters are any good at.
Goodbye Dyson (Bagless) Heydon.
Another liar from the liars party bites the dust.

No idea what OTB is talking about. I was referring to Kath Jakson.

Abbott has a leaking problem, he may need a nappy to soak up the excess. Cabinet is dysfunctional says Tony A good reason to cancel cabinet talks altogether and let Tony handle it alone.

Dyson is deliberating his own fate, how many persons in the world would recommend that for a job. It leaves itself wide open to a corrupt mind, let alone millions in paid money to be considered. What the allegations were about could come a distant second thought.

I believe the man has more scruples than that, millions of $ would not mean the heavens are falling in. I say he will make an informed judgment upon himself and concede the allegations against him are not a good look and stand aside. It’s how the saying goes “where there is smoke there is fire”.

Where would we be without a media like the ABC, Uninformed that is where we would be, Investigative and factual, with tolerance to withhold evidence until cleared for publication. What other media does that, their interest is in sensationalism rather than news. There is a side of politics that is against facts. News can only be put forth is the story is there to be told, and sometimes this does not suit some political circles.
Radio shock jocks openly show their side of political radicalism, and rarely come up news that is not in favor of their own persuasions.

There is one print media that continually prints news that no one else either bothers with, or the story is not there to write about. This is a fact of our freedom of press, there is no certificate of authenticity needed. It comes down to a person or corporations instructions on how to run their news output

Had a brief convo the other night when the Kathy Jackson story broke with the two journalists most responsible for uncovering her actions starting way back in 2012. MSM, as we know, went out of their way to ignore the story (and Heydon recently followed up by wafting over her behaviour in his interim report)....seems there was a major pattern within MSM in not following up the allegations as they were coming light.

The only time the story hit the ABC was in this page in 2012:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-26/jacksons-at-centre-of-hsu-allegations/4093190

Then - "crickets".

These journalists mentioned that Simon Cullen was very helpful in pushing for this story to be published, but that he'd faced huge opposition getting it up on site.

Considering how Jackson was sanctified and lauded by the Abbott govt, I think runner should give the ABC a rosette for going out of its way in the early days of the investigation to ignore the story like the rest of MSM...except for this one occasion.

doog,

The only ones who could be considered the mates of the outlaw motorcycle gangs who are responsible for manufacturing, trafficking and distributing drugs and for almost all of the gun crime would be Labor and the Greens. Outlaw bikies had paid large sums to lawyers to appeal the law but it was upheld.

Both parties made that very, very obvious in their election promises in Queensland and now that Labor is in power.

Here is footage of organised gangs rioting on the Gold Coast, that was quickly stemmed by the successful anti-bikie laws that Labor Premier Anastacia Palazcuck pledged to withdraw,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1116931/As-happened-Gold-Coast-bikie-brawl-footage-released.html

'Where would we be without a media like the ABC'

far more balanced and free speach encouraged. Don't forget Murdoch backed Rudd. Shows how foolish he can be also.

I believe my Steve101 reading on the ideas of propaganda has not been understood, and correctly responded to.

Having read replies, repliers are adding to the problem I am criticising.
By merely talking about, writing about for others to read, the more people read and hear propaganda the more propaganda becomes true.

The reading was about not believing everything people read and hear from the media to be true. Yet people believe because they understand what they believe to be true.

Embarrassing stories are believed because as children at school, teachers embarrassing other children dramas were real. Adults having forgotten school, remember quick responses to believing embarrassing stories. The media are aware of the love for embarrassing stories and place embarrassing stories in political stories.

The same problem exists where people believe priests are actually speaking by praying to god. The more priests pray to god, the more people believe a god must exist.

The next reading, a reading typed out weeks ago, should provide ideas that the media realise that faith is blind.

I'd like to explain (not review) the animation movie “Rise of the Guardians”. Aside from the normal evil verse good battle for power, in between the fast moving chase scenes the general conversation between the child imaginary: Santa-claws; The Sand Man; Jack Frost; Tooth Fairies; The Easter Bunny and the evil Boggy Man, if children stop believing in them, they loose they're magic powers.
In the movie “Merlin” staring Sam Neil, a pagan goddess wants to regain her powers over people. At the end of the movie, Merlin tells a crowd of people to turn away from the goddess and don't think of her. The pagan goddess is seen fading away.
A Simpson episode has Springfield's corporation large human and a bull billboard images and statues destroying the town. Lisa has a man singing a song telling people to “Just Don't Look”, the large figures stopped moving, falling to the ground.
Larger than normal size things can represent a god of whatever a thing is. Greek gods are big, shrinking down to human size when required. Australia's the big banana; the big pineapple; the big ram.
You may ask “am I Serious or what”.
There's a worth while message to be had to those whom are capable of understanding.
The trinity is the “father, the son and the holly ghost” or “holly spirit”. You could say ghosts become more real the more people believe in ghosts. My Encarta 1998 disc, on reading the trinity states, (as close a wording as I can remember) the father refers to church priests, the son refers to peasantry church followers and the holly ghost or spirit refers to the belief congregations have in the religion. I tried an Internet search on the trinity and found little to support the above.
My message being: The power of belief can have manipulating controls over people.
In the past, people in power could get away with doing bad things to populations, example: heresies and witchcraft, blaming god. Nowadays, when things go wrong, they can blame the economy.

We have too much faith in our own beliefs about politicians to actually have any real influence over government policy and laws.
To me what politicians are doing is no more than what priests do, that being politicians are putting on a performance to entertain and convince listeners.

When believed government controlled events turn bad, (economic collapse) propaganda believers are going to believe our not very intelligent dysfunctional politicians are partly responsible, yet, you get what you pay for, not thinking of alternative causes.

Seven years after 2008 GFC, is it time for another probable fake collapse.

Yes Jackson was put on a pedestal by Abbott. Why is it what Abbott touches turns into a steaming hot pile of excrement. His judgment of human flesh is not very desirable, and now Dyson has dirtied himself with publicly signing up for a Liberal fundraiser. I wonder what his speech was going to be about, the mind runs rampant. I don’t know why the time delay for deliberations, surely the questions could have been answered on the day. I think it is more like time to write a speech, not admitting any wrong doing but in the interest of impartiality he believes it would be appropriate for him to step aside.

Oh ho ho what a scream, will Abbott ever learn to allow his colleagues to have a say in government matters instead of making decisions by himself. His fellow elected members must feel left out by Abbott’s self imposed position of self importance. How many failed captains picks have to happen until his workmates say enough is enough, we need a new leader.

We have had nearly two years of this particular style of government, which has been incredibly biased toward the rich end of town, and not to the liking of a great deal of the community. A trigger for a DD election has been supplied to the government, so why don’t they make use of it and put an end of the disquiet in the community.

For the present government to linger in its position is unfair to the welfare of Australia and its citizens. Investment is at a historic low, unemployment is rampant, consumer and business confidence is in the doldrums, an election needs to take place to clear the air and reset Australia on the path to prosperity and wellbeing for its citizens

When it turns out the heroines of the union movement also have feet of
clay then I think the staged uproar over Dyson makes me think that
if we have a LNP inclined Royal Commissioner it might be a good thing.
Or would you prefer a ALP inclined Royal Commissioner ?

Surely this whole operation is all about saving some union backsides !

Dear Bazz,

I feel that this is about political scoring on both sides
of politics. Which is a shame as good people often get
hurt in the process. However I think that the Justice
is an intelligent man and he won't fall into the trap
being set for him. He will not throw away the good
reputation he spent a lifetime acquiring. Justice must not
only be done. It must be seen to be done.

Bazz,

"....if we have a LNP inclined Royal Commissioner it might be a good thing.
Or would you prefer a ALP inclined Royal Commissioner ?

Surely this whole operation is all about saving some union backsides !"

Well, you'd better take that up with the likes of Heydon.

He dilly-dallied around Jackson when she was up before TURC - and barely mentioned her shenanigans when he filed his interim report.

So much for an LNP-inclined commissioner "saving some union backsides".

Baz It has been made clear another commissioner can be made available he is not the only retired judge. More than half the nation says it is the Labor party on trial. Another Abbott set up to smear Labor, but things have not gone Abbotts way have they.

Abbott came to power on the back of a fraud, to satify his agenda, and a royal commission into union corruption was just part of Abbott’s agenda. And now it has turned into one of them steaming hot piles.

Is this another pile in the making.

Liberal candidate for Canning and former SAS commander Andrew Hastie has defended his actions in Afghanistan, saying an inquiry found they were appropriate.

Fairfax Media has reported Captain Hastie was in the same troop as soldiers who cut off the hands of Taliban fighters killed in combat in Afghanistan two years ago.

Speaking at a Liberal Party event in Western Australia ahead of the Canning by-election, Captain Hastie said he was not at the scene of the incident when it happened.

"When I became aware, I did what I was required to do and promptly reported the incident up the chain of command," he said

Doog, I do not think it will matter if another judge is appointed, he
will be attacked if he brings down an adverse finding.
All this would have gone anyway if he did not receive an invitation.

Face it, the real problem is the strong & legal connection between
the unions and the ALP. Even the vague connection between the unions
and the bikies has led to government in QLD leaning over backwards
to make thing easier for the bikies.

Methinks you & others protest too much !

It is difficult to understand how any citizen could be so stupid as to wish that the RC is derailed.

It is always a pleasure to see political "blood on the carpet." And it is always a pleasure to see the mainstream engulfed in conflict as to me this gives an opportunity for the smaller parties and independents to make a positive impression on the electorate.

Personally, I couldn't care less if this parasitic little pencil fiddler spends his private hours banging up drugs and enjoying a cigar and scotch after porking young women for money.

What matters to me (on a personal level) is the quality of his work. Are his judgements impartial and well reasoned pursuant to the law or not? That is what matters, not the fact that he is personally politically inclined this way or that.

However, as to what the currently in force law says is another matter. And if it is true that even the "apprehension" of bias is grounds for dismissal, then I suspect that he will have little choice other than to stand down - which is a shame.

Neither is it clear to me whether or not he can just be replaced or whether in fact the entire commission would have to be reconstituted in order for it to proceed if he were to have to stand down.

As for the Unions, whilst I believe that essentially these kinds of movements grow out of necessity to ensure fairness in the labour market, the political monster which they have grown into is an entirely different matter, and one that needs to be pruned back real hard.

As previously said, I am in favor of strategies that make the Unions less relevant e.g. by tweaking the Fair Work Ombudsman in conjunction with better education.

You must admit Baz this bloke has caused his own dilemma. Being invited to talk and pay for the opportunity to do so, really makes you wonder what the subject of conversation would be about. To me his tenure at a royal commission of the opposing political party, is on very shaky ground, and it is ridiculous that he is allowed to pass judgment on himself.

The whole thing reeks of a political set up by Abbott as he was Abbott’s pick as commissioner.
Did you see Abbott last night cuddling up to the candidate for WA bi election, it makes your skin crawl to see a supposed PM in such a compromising position. The most unethical situation ever seen by an Australian PM.

Union bashing by force is out the window, if you want something, the objective is to liaise and come to a compromise. Unions represent the Australian workers being members or not. Never have workers knocked back wage rises brought about by union pressure.

Whew, dood you really need to relax a bit.
I would imagine that the talk would have been a typical extremely
boring legal talk.
I cannot help but think the whole hoo haa has generated a whole flock
of over acting political actors.

If a new commissioner is appointed and brings down adverse findings
what is the bet that there will be accusations of bias ?

I suspect that a whole mindset of widespread corruption is being
uncovered and this seems to be the source of such widespread outrage.
The Labour Party itself is being corrupted by association with the unions.

Baz There is nothing new concerning the association of unions and Labor, All that is needed is to run a Royal Commission without corruption or bias surely that is not to much to ask.

Corrupt union officials need to be held to account, no differently than corrupt liberal party personal that stole 1.5 million $ from a liberal party election funds in Victoria.

It’s the fact that liberal supporters say the commissioner is squeaky clean, how do you know that when there are allegations of corruption publicly against him. Dyson himself said it’s not a good look.

Just as the Libers say Abbott has done no wrong ever. It’s hardly what you call an unbiased comment is it. Abbott said Jackson was heroic, we can only assume it suited Abbott’s agenda at the time.

Did Jackson’s testimony sway the court case against Thomson. If Jackson was a known corrupt at the time would she have been allowed to testify against Thomson.

doog:
Re Jackson, no one realised that there might be allegations in the future.
It is unfair to imply that others knew of possible allegations.

Quote: when there are allegations of corruption publicly against him.

Are there such allegations ? I have not heard any, and I think you
would want to be very careful to make such allegations.
Not even in the coward's castle have I heard that, oh yes I did, the
"Bagman" accusation that was withdrawn.
Bagman means someone who is given brown paper bags.

I think it would be reasonable to accept Dyson's explanation and then
see if he is biased rather than accuse him without evidence because
he might act with bias.

Do you think it is fair for the man to judge his own position when at the same time he is the head of a royal commission into corruption of union officials which also includes the leader of the opposition. This itself could make the man step aside. When otherwise he may be allowed to continue.

No one said Jackson was a known corrupt: at the time of Thompsons trial. You are reading items that are not there. Jackson was put on a pedestal by Abbott, and now it has come crashing down. There seems to be a definite pattern in the chain of events that have taken place.

It is predictable that while federal Labor and their union mates are hurling accusations of bias against the Royal Commissioner, there is no mention of Queensland Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk's 'Captain's Pick' of the judge to lead Labor's unnecessary, highly controversial 'review' to deep six the successful Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (VLAD).

"Alice Gorman: Bikies’ easy ride a farce

[snip]
A look at the terms of reference [for the 'review' of the VLAD Act] reveals much about the destination.

“The taskforce will note the Queensland Government’s intention to repeal, and replace the 2013 legislation, whether by substantial amendment and/or new legislation … and advise if the legislation strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring the safety, welfare and good order of the community and protecting individual civil liberties,” it says.

Next the state’s new Chief Judge Tim Carmody, a vocal supporter of the VLAD laws, was bullied by his peers until he agreed to resign his tenure.

And now the courts have allowed the bikie bullies behind the mass brawl at Broadbeach in September 2013 to walk from court with a slap on the wrist and no jail time. Last week the accused ringleader of the brawl, Jacques Teamo, was sentenced to four months imprisonment wholly suspended.

None of the 18 current and former Bandidos sentenced for their role in the brawl will spend any time in jail.

That’s despite the fact bikie gang members threatened to slit the throat of an innocent bystander, king-hit a police officer and terrorised families trying to enjoy a meal at the Gold Coast’s tourism mecca.

After the surprise court decision, Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath said her office wouldn’t appeal the result.

I bet I’m not the only person wondering what planet Ms D’Ath and her parliamentary colleagues are on.
..."
http://tinyurl.com/ngamzqu

tbc..

and,

"Retired judge who criticised chief justice Tim Carmody to review Queensland's anti-bikie laws

A vocal critic of Queensland's Chief Justice has been appointed to head a taskforce that includes representatives from police and the Queensland Law Society, to review the state's Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment (VLAD) laws.

In March, Justice Alan Wilson compared Chief Justice Tim Carmody to an orchestra conductor who did not have the respect of his musicians.

He said his criticism of Justice Carmody would not impact on his review of the VLAD laws. which the Chief Justice was seen to support."..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-11/taskforce-head-appointed-to-review-queenslands-anti-bikie-laws/6539228

It is obviously different, sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander, where the easily-organised baying mob of leftists are concerned. If the boot was on the other foot in Queensland Labor and their treacherous Greens sidekicks would be screaming blue murder.

The upshot of all this is that the unions have had some weeks of being
under Dyson's examination but the only bias complaint they could find
was that last year he had intended to give a law lecture to Liberal party lawyers.

Seems to me he should have been giving it to Labour party lawyers,
I suspect they may need it more than the Liberals.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that it is a desperate attempt to
escape examination. Another commissioner may really be biased, or are
they hoping to stall it long enough for the next election.

Dear Bazz,

The worry however is that the Justice claims
to have "overlooked" certain things about
the Liberal Party Event when he apparently was
invited to speak and accepted.
This does not bode well for a Royal Commission.
If he "overlooked" things in this event - what
else is he capable of "overlooking" in the
Royal Commission?

His position is not looking tenable.

Foxy why does clutching and straws come to mind ?

Dear Bazz,

It's all a matter of perception.

The Justice will make his decision
on Tuesday as to how he is perceived
and whether he wants to risk his credibility.

Foxy, the judge is between a rock & a hard place.
If he stands down the mob will cry "We told you so !".
and he will be taken as biased.

If he thinks that would be an admission of bias as charged by someone
who has something to gain.

If this becomes the fashion then where will it lead ?
It will work its way down the court system to less important cases.
Dig up something about the judge, belongs to the wrong football club
or whatever.

"I am just a worker and he once met the Liberal PM."

Bit of a stretch but ----

Dear Bazz,

He's very widely regarded as one of the finest
legal minds in the state and has a well-earned
reputation for fairness and decency.

I'm sure that he will make the right decision.

I can't help wondering though - had he been on
a Royal Commission investigating Liberal Party
rorts and he'd been invited to speak at a Labor
Party dinner giving a talk about Lionel Murphy -
what the fuss have been the same or worse?

Foxy I don't doubt some would have complained even if he had declined.

However I suspect even you would doubt it would have anything like
the venom and abuse we have seen here and now.

Dear Bazz,

Every Forum of political and social debate
attracts its share of trolls and bullies.
OLO is not exception as we've both seen over
the years.

Err Foxy, I did not mean the abuse on here, I meant the abuse in parliament, in door stops and in the media.

Heydon has reserved his decision on an application by unions to disqualify himself from the inquiry - and now will not be delivering his ruling on Tuesday.

Dear Bazz,

That's too depressing for me - to even think about
at present.

Dear Poirot,

I think the Commission should be allowed to
do its job. The voters can assess the findings.

Well Foxy if the commissioner does change it won't make much difference.
All the research and investigation appears to be done by experienced
detectives and lawyers. Then barristers prepare the questions to be
put to the witnesses and the commissioner collates and writes his report.

As far as I can tell that is how it is run. The evidence is public so
the public can read it and make their own conclusions.
Seems to me that bias should be a more sensitive matter with the
investigators and lawyers. They have the opportunity to suppress any
matter that suits their bias. However there is probably too many people involved for that.

Dear Bazz,

We can only trust and hope that this results
in a genuine union reform - which is long overdue.

Foxy, yes indeed. It is interesting, it seems the faceless men are no
longer faceless men according to the CFMEU's barrister it seems.
He actually insisted that the unions control the ALP.
He did not quite use that language but it was clear that was what he meant.

Another phenomena that I think I can see is that Victoria is taking over Canberra in a political putsch.

That alone would be enough reason not to vote Labour.

Yup, it's fascinating....

Watching Abbott deploy a Royal Commission to beat the unions around the head.

Taking money from the RC into institutional child abuse and funnelling it into the union bash. Heading it up with a hand-picked commissioner who has "Liberal loyalty" written all over him.

A commissioner who all but ignored Jackson's shenanigans in his interim report.

A commissioner who went out of his way to criticise Shorten's responses.

A commissioner who went gung-ho in trying to make something stick with Gillard - and failed.

A commissioner who accepted the Lib Party invite because he thought the RC would be done and dusted by then - except that Abbott, determined to get as much mileage as he could from the set up, extended it.

But good old karma, as usual, comes along to give Abbott and his contrived RC a good kick in the pants.

Lol!

Dear Poirot,

Did you happen to see "Four Corners," on
Bill Shorten, and the Unions last night?

Four Corners last night. The ABC seems to have dropped its bias. Certainly, no favours were done for Bill Shorten or the unions. One of Shorten's cronies could have had a part in the Sopranos, and Bill himself came over as a very naughty boy.

How else do you get a good union man, certainly not by talking sweet talk to employers.
You say it as it is, that is what Abbott can't handle. If you do not like the truth don't cause the situations where you get critisised for it.
How do you like Turnbulls 15 Billion $ NBN blowout, discretely exposed.

Video has emerged of royal commissioner Dyson Heydon slamming Kevin Rudd's government as "non-substantive" at a free-market think-tank event.

Labor, which believes the retired High Court justice was appointed to head the royal commission into trade unions because of his political stripes, is pressuring Mr Heydon to step aside after Fairfax Media revealed he agreed to address a Liberal party fundraiser.

Mr Heydon said he "overlooked" the Liberal party connections and contends he did not read an attached donation form and flyer provided to him two months before he cancelled his appearance at the Sir Garfield Barwick Address.

In a roundtable hosted by the classically liberal and free-market think-tank the Centre for Independent Studies in June 2013, Mr Heydon took aim at Labor's regulation of the charities sector.

At the time the comments were made Mr Heydon was recently retired from the High Court, former Labor leader Julia Gillard was still prime minister and it was about eight months before Mr Heydon was appointed by the Coalition to head the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and corruption .

"Four Corners last night. The ABC seems to have dropped its bias.",
......but when it's a leader of the coalition properly copping it it's bias, right?

Let it ALL hang out, I say.

Not a good look that Shorten refused to be interviewed by Four Corners. Particularly after his evasiveness before the Royal Commission.

Paul Howes, who replaced Shorten as national secretary of the Australian Workers Union said that Labor should sever its links with the unions for the benefit of both unions and Labor.

Kevin Rudd and other senior figures from the ALP believed the same.

Regrettably the stranglehold of the factions in Labor is such that the rank and file are denied a real say in the ALP.

Bill will save his right of reply until after the Royal Commission has finished.

Talking of not good looks.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott had a private dinner with one of the nation's biggest media moguls, Kerry Stokes, in Broome on Saturday night two months after handing the Seven West chairman a win by putting controversial media reforms on hold.

In June, Mr Abbott put on hold reforms proposed by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that would have abolished the so-called "reach rule", which prohibits TV licence holders from broadcasting to more than 75 per cent of the population, and the two-out-of-three rule, which stops a media company from controlling more than two of a radio station, free-to-air TV station and newspaper.

Seven West, in particular, and News Corp opposed change – which has the support of regional TV networks, the Nine Network and Fairfax Media – but the Prime Minister has indicated he is unlikely to move on the laws unless there is consensus in the industry, which is an unlikely prospect.

In June, Mr Abbott put on hold reforms proposed by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that would have abolished the so-called "reach rule", which prohibits TV licence holders from broadcasting to more than 75 per cent of the population, and the two-out-of-three rule, which stops a media company from controlling more than two of a radio station, free-to-air TV station and newspaper.

Since the changes were blocked, regional TV networks Prime, WIN, Southern Cross Austereo and Imparja have launched a "save our voices" campaign and warned of local jobs being lost, particularly in regional news, a prospect that has caused growing agitation among Nationals MPs including deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss

In the lead-up to the decision to put media ownership reforms on hold, Mr Stokes was reportedly lobbying heavily behind the scenes, putting calls in to Mr Abbott, deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop and a range of other senior Coalition MPs.

Prime Media Group chairman John Hartigan, who was formerly the boss of News Corp Australia, said the prospect of job losses at regional TV networks including Prime and WIN was very real.

The meeting between the pair also comes after Seven last week announced the launch of a new app which will allow viewers to stream all its programs on mobile devices, regardless of where they are in the country, which regional broadcasters have attacked as evidence of Seven's "hypocrisy" because it allows the broadcaster to circumvent the 75 per cent reach rule.

Nah, Foxy...I didn't see it.

But this govt can't put a foot right. Every time they're primed to slam Shorten something else comes up.

First it was Bronnie and her chopper escapades - and today the govt is so concentrated on shrieking about a stupid tweet that aired on QandA that the Four Corner's hatchet job of Shorten isn't even trending...the QandA tweet is trending on twitter though.

When is the RC into the Ashby affair going to start?

Dear Poirot,

What a shame you didn't see it.

I would have loved to have received
your opinion on it.

It left me seriously wondering about Shorten's
character. Perhaps that was its intent.
I don't know. Either that or I'm very gullible.

doog,

Clever old you, knowing when Bill will "reply". From my observations, your man could very well be deprived of his liberty at the end of the Royal Commission.

You can take Shortens reply timing as gospel it came from the party.

How do you like Abbotts last example of how to spend tax payers money.
He booked 40 motel rooms at 250 $ each and only 12 were used. The motel was given 2 hours notice of cancelations, now the motel wants the full 40 rooms paid for, as they were turning people away because they were booked.

doog,

If, and I say IF, the complaint about short notice cancellation of the motel is correct I think it is pretty poor form on the part of the person responsible. If it was up to me, that person would be sacked. However, Abbott, for all his faults, does not book the accomodation; just as it was an idiotic hack party member who invited the Royal Commissioner to a Liberal love-in.

I must say, though, it's hard to believe that $54,000 would be involved at remote motel.

Pardon me, but I am sceptical of your information on Shorten's intentions came straight from the party; and I still believe he belongs in the Big House. I don't care how unionists speak to employers as you seem to think, but I do care if they take money from them.

Unions have taken money from Businesses since their funding from government was revoked, and given to churches.

You believe what you need to believe, about Shorten, TTBN. No body can take that away from you.

The barrow that you push is in dire need of repair, and has long since faltered.

Not good form to blame someone for what happens in your own government, like who is in charge "Abbott supposedly. All good leaders take the blame for their own shortcomings, and not push it on to someone that can't defend themselves.

Like, Shorten is a "good leader" because he takes the blame, doog? You will have your little joke.

I am not pushing any barrow. I have big probems with Abbott, Hockey and Turnbull. I think Brandis is a zombie and, to be perfectly honest, I couldn't name most of the other ministers because they don't stand out at all. Morrison would be the pick of the bunch for me.

However, as I have said several times, I believe that, apart from Morrison, there is not a single politician whom I think is worthy of running this country. I will be casting an informal vote at the next election and writing appropriate comments on the ballot papers. I will continue to do that until a decent, genuine conservative party turns up.

Morrison is a lame duck because of his compassion to follow Abbott’s ideas of handling of asylum seekers. Which there will be a royal commission into.

There has to be a Royal Commission into asylum seekers because Labor has said they will keep Abbott’s plan as is unless it is found to be illegal. As we do not know what is happening because of secrecy, it’s validy is unknown, and may need some changes.

You have a genuine Conservative govt; in place here and now. So your ambitions of getting a better one is miles away. AU did not vote for conservatism we voted for a Liberal govt; and got something else.

Abbott’s far right wing party is not in Australia’s interests. We are currently in limbo with no guidance and no accounting.

The Royal Commission is now proving to be rotten to the core, the unions would be best served to boycott it completely.

Fresh information has surfaced that Dyson and others new about, who can there be any sort of trust in the commission. How much of this did Abbott know about. Dyson has questions that require answers.

Right from the start this has been an Abbott set up. Why can’t he do things according to proper ethics.

Haydon and Abbott are frauds. The Liberal party just allow Abbott to carry on unchecked and should be disbanded.

This Kangaroo court is a shambles and an undercover private deal all in Abbott’s interest of putting mud on the opponent. Which will only serve to strengthen the unions and Labor party.

Can any of Heydons recommendations to date be taken seriously, he has been a long time critic of the Labor party, and this shambles is the final straw.

doog,

"Right from the start this has been an Abbott set up. Why can’t he do things according to proper ethics."

That was pretty well confirmed yesterday when Abbott's wayward mouth blurted what we already knew. While giving a short presser he waxed lyrical about the RC being an important part of cleaning up the union movement....unfortunately for him, he followed that up with the line - "an important part of cleaning up the Labor Party".

That's - "an important part of cleaning up the Labor Party,"!

Here's a tweet with with vision and sound of him saying it:

http://twitter.com/MallyKernow/status/636857458141499392

From Abbott's own lips that TURC is politically motivated.

• The Abbott Government has committed to income tax cuts without damaging the budget while reducing carbon emissions without increasing energy prices. Abbott says it's down to the Coalition's DNA. But voters may think it's more like DNTA - Do Not Trust Abbott.

Abbott has fluffed it again with his boarder force Gestapo’s. Absolute arrogance on the streets. What is the role of this troop are they police or military. Yesterday we saw an attempt at marshal law in Melbourne, we need to know their role before someone gets hurt. They carry guns.

This has all the hallmarks of a secret service, and Abbott is the head honcho and lawmaker. Investigations need to take place. It’s hard to keep up with the dealings of this govt; was there any legislation involved or is it an Abbottism. What are their powers of duty

Additions to silly statement lists:
Yesterday we saw an attempt at marshal law in Melbourne,
This has all the hallmarks of a secret service (in uniform)

Just from one post

Sorry Baz but if you have another name for it we would like to know.

Accosting every available person on the street, checking validity of passports. There would probably be one person carrying a passport to every 5000 persons without a passport. Besides that who would be carrying around an out of date visa or passport.

The racket has a vial stench all over it. What a pack of goons, whose idea do you think it might have been to come up with that plan. Not hard to tell, it had hallmarks all over it.

IT’s a wonder why ID cards have not been mentioned.

Militarisation of Border force and Police dragged into it as well. What a clown show. We are now imposing martial law, and everybody is suspicious until we say otherwise.

I think Abbott could have done well keeping out of Victoria. Practice your exercises in Alice Springs, where He may be appreciated.

Talk about a waste of taxpayers money. Now this Dyson Heydon has set his Royal Commission into a week long paralyses at a cost of a million dollars (based on the estimated total cost) as he comes up with what: (A) I am bias in favour of the Liberal Party, we already know that. Or (B) I'm wriggling myself out of it. I am not bias in favour of the Liberal Party, but we know you are. Any which way it costs the taxpayer a million bucks!

It’s only money. There is something going on behind the sense. No doubt Abbott and Dyson will be conferring, about what will come out in the wash. We can’t take any notice of what has come out of this RC to date as it is tainted with not having the appropriate persons at the forefront.

Former independent MP Tony Windsor, who is now considering a return to federal politics, says he does not think the Australian Border Force (ABF) announcement was a mistake, but rather an attempt by the Government to engender fear in the community for political advantage.
Yesterday, the Federal Government announced that ABF officers would take to the streets of Melbourne's CBD in a joint effort with Victoria Police to crack down on crime and visa fraud.

The operation was quickly called off, however, after hundreds of protesters stopped traffic in Melbourne's CBD, concerned about a possible attack on civil liberties.

Speaking to AM this morning, Mr Windsor said he "had no doubt" the operation was a government decision aimed at sparking fear into the public.

Another failure, when is all of this going to end.
"It is an absolute disgrace."
Labor, the Greens and the union representing ABF officers are demanding answers from Immigration Minister Peter Dutton over the operation.

But Mr Windsor said the project could have been signed off without Mr Dutton's approval.

"Maybe Tony Abbott's doing more 'captain's picks' in relation to this. He might be circumventing Peter Dutton's ministerial portfolio," he said.

"But I can understand why Peter Dutton wouldn't want to stand in front of this. There is no way you could defend doing this in a country like ours.

We've had this constant barrage of fearful innuendo, fearful messages, press releases, and this is just another one on top of this barrage of fear-producing rhetoric that's been coming out of Tony Abbott, Peter Dutton and others.

If there has ever been a way of causing disruption Heydon has just found it. There's still some time before things get underway. In the meantime, read more about Dyson Heydon, 'The Great Loner' who will sit in judgement of his own actions.

Sounds like the conservatives have had a win at last.
Here's Justice Heydon's explanation of Ms Gillard's appearance at the royal commission:

Ms Gillard was called because of her role in the Australian Workers’ Union ... She gave evidence not because she wanted to be or later became a Labor politician, but because a long time ago she acted as a solicitor for an official who was successively Western Australian State Secretary and Victorian State Secretary of the AWU.

How many times does mrs Gillard have to answer the same questions.

The event that Justice Heydon had agreed to address was a "legal speech" not a "Liberal speech"

COMMENT: Why did his honour cancel his appearance at the Liberal Party event if, as he says in his judgement, appearing at it could not be seen as endorsing the views of the organisers?

Dyson Heydon rules that he will stay on as trade union royal commission, saying he could not have seen that emails sent to him carried a Liberal Party letterhead because he is "incapable of sending or receiving emails"

A person judging himself , leaves it self wide open to speculation.

Compatriots Foxy and Poirot, this old lefty says; Heydon will not resign yet I hear what you say and certainly agree, he should go!

Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 21 August 2015 9:03:31 PM

Blow my own trumpet, and say I told you so.

The comical farce continues, Heydon judges himself and guess what? Finds himself innocent. My forum friends Foxy and Poirot rightly spoke of good reputation and such lofty ideals, my comment was based on the mundane rubbish of self preservation!

Hearings will resume into the CFMEU ACT branch at 10am Tuesday 1 September.

http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx

Good.

The Kangaroo Court will resume at 10.01am Tuesday 1 September.

Bad.

The Greens and Labor would want to conceal donations received from the CFMEU.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-05/liberals-want-act-government-to-cut-financial-links-with-cfmeu/6673180

Abbott wanting to strangle labor's finances. Just more of the same from Abbott.

Attacks on unions are an attack on workers, they are the union.

Three cheers for the Commissioner! He has stared down the Labor and union thugs. Here's hoping he refers many more of them to the proper authorities to receive justice under the laws they, the thugs, have been trying to subvert.

Beach, "The Greens and Labor would want to conceal donations received from the CFMEU." Yet, The Greens and Labor publically declared all donations from the CFMEU, unlike the corrupt Liberal Party in NSW which failed to declare secret illegal donations from property developers before the last state election! Beach care to comment on that?

A ruling has been made and all should abide by it.

As a layperson I would have to say that some of the attacks on the Royal Commission and by people who should know better could fall under this provision of the relevant Act,

<ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 - SECT 6O

Contempt of Royal Commission
(1) Any person who intentionally insults or disturbs a Royal Commission, or interrupts the proceedings of a Royal Commission, or uses any insulting language towards a Royal Commission, or by writing or speech uses words false and defamatory of a Royal Commission, or is in any manner guilty of any intentional contempt of a Royal Commission, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Two hundred dollars, or imprisonment for three months.

(2) If the President or Chair of a Royal Commission or the sole Commissioner is a Justice of the High Court, or a Judge of any other Federal Court, of the Supreme Court of a Territory or of the Supreme Court or County Court or District Court of a State, he or she shall, in relation to any offence against subsection (1) of this section committed in the face of the Commission, have all the powers of a Justice of the High Court sitting in open Court in relation to a contempt committed in face of the Court, except that any punishment inflicted shall not exceed the punishment provided by subsection (1) of this section.>

No mention of any of that by the 'fact-checking'(?!) taxpayer-funded national broadcaster though.

Attorney-General George Brandis said Dyson Heydon is the "right" man for the job he will "forensically" go through the "evidence". Is this the same Dyson Heydon who claims he does not know how to read an e-mail on a computer, or open an attachment! Can he feed himself?

When you see Dyson reading notes in front of him, he is seeing if the answers line up with what he has in front of him. Where did he get that information from. Why was Gillard questioned. A lame duck excuse was given. He said he did not believe that she did not know the money for renovations was tainted . [ That was Dysons opinion ] Nothing proved.
Shorten was said to be a non compliant witness. [ again Dysons opinion }
How much reliance is put into an opinion.

Perceived bias was disregarded by Dyson, It will always remain, as it can not be seen or touched. It was dysons verdict that perceived bias will not happen. [ Dysons opinion ] Is it believable or not.

The RC must continue, at least it must be seen to be fair, or else it will forever have a cloud hanging over it. Shorten gave the ok to select another Commissioner, but as yet it has not been accepted. If Abbott was any sort of a leader he would have saved the peace and Picked another Commissioner.

Public opinion will carry more weight than a self judged person.

yep and many involved with the Child abuse RC are Catholic haters. The left are pathetic.

doog,

There is no way that Abbott or any other political leader can replace or remove a Royal Commissioner. I am surprised that the Commissioner hasn't already sought jail for some Labor politicians and union leaders for contempt of the Commission. Those bozos are as ignorant as you are about the legalities of Royal Commissions.

Something to think about.

One columnist writes that big corporations are as worried about Dyson Heydon as the unions are. If the Commissioner continues digging, the extent to which some corporations are funding unions to block industrial reforms will be out in the open.

The Federal Opposition will next week attempt to remove trade unions royal commissioner Dyson Heydon by moving a Senate motion.
Key points:

• Labor to move Senate motion to remove Heydon
• Motion will call on Governor-General to intervene
• Government says motion is a stunt
• Council of Civil Liberties criticises Heydon's decision

Justice Heydon yesterday announced he would remain as head of the commission despite pressure from the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the Labor Party for him to stand down.

The ACTU argued Justice Heydon's decision to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser created a perception of bias, even though he withdrew from the event.

I wish that this entire matter had not been politicised.
But I suppose that was wishful thinking on my part.
Reforms are necessary - be they union or corporation
or any other institution.
It is disappointing that Justice Dyson did
not resign from the Royal Commission. We shall have to wait
and see whether he is able to glean some good and fair results
out of all this.

doog,

Labor and the Senate. They are all mouth and trousers. The Senate can do nothing except block anything put up by the government. Do you really think that the Governor General would lower himself to indulge Labor's political sliming of an appointed Royal Commissioner? We all know that Labor is hypocritical (remember Kerr), but our GG is s person of integrity who will not be bullied by a bunch of totally transparent and apprehensive politicians and union heavies.

Dear ttbn,

For your information: -

The Senate has 76 senators -
12 are elected for each of the six states,
and two each for the Australian Capital Territory and
the Northern Territory.

Senators debate current issues, consider Bills (proposed
new laws), committee reports and papers presented (or tabled)
by the Ministers of Parliament. They travel to meet people in
their States and take the views they hear back to Parliament.

Parliament has members and senators from different political
parties. And this helps strengthen Governments and makes
them more stable in Australia.

It's interesting to remember that despite having to deal
with a minority government our former PM was able to get
so many bills passed in the Senate. Yet the current government
is having difficulties in doing much of anything - despite
having the numbers.

As for Governor-Generals? The mere mention of Sir John Kerr brings
back memories of some very unethical behaviour.
Perhaps you should have a read of the book - "Anatomy of
A Coup," by Stephen Foley and Marshall Wilson. It makes for
compulsive reading for anyone who believes exposure is the
most effective check against the abuse of power.

It will be interesting to see if ASIC finds some reason for it to act
when some detail comes out such as fiddling auditing matters and accounting
for sums of money paid to unions.
In other words have the directors signed off as a true record of the company finances.

Bad enough and they could go to gaol.

Fox,

You opine that, "[You] wish that this entire matter had not been politicised".

Then there is the sting in the tail, "It is disappointing that Justice Dyson did not resign from the Royal Commission".

But you are not being political, you say?

What about you go through the reasons for ruling and prove a weakness?

http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Hearings/Documents/2015/Evidence31August2015/ReasonsforRulingonDisqualificationApplicationdated31August2015.pdf

The public is not so easily fooled by those who are responsible for the relentless, unfair and cowardly attacks on the honorable and very learned and astute Justice heading the RC and on the Royal Commission itself.

The Royal Commission is for the good of Australians and Australia.

And regardless of what happens to Heydon, we can rest assured that the rc will go on.

And it would seem increasingly likely that there is a whole world of skulduggery yet to unearth, as we now have some of the retired and more senior members of the alp positioning themselves for the fall out.

The scum in the labour right especially need to be dealt with, and when all is said and done, and the media have pumped it all up, the gap between the polling for the major parties may narrow.

For their crimes against humanity, the deaths at sea and the abuse of children, *^&% the alp. Let 'em burn I say.

And if the Greens know what's good for them, they'll get well out of the way.

Foxy,

This issue was deliberately politicized by Labor and the unions.

TURC is a result of a string of blatant criminal acts emanating from various of the trade unions especially the CFMEU. That something is rotten in the trade union movement is obvious even to blind Freddie, and only an irresponsible leader would do nothing.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Given the union movement's ties to the Labor Party
is isn't surprising that the Royal Commission established
by a combative, conservative government led by Prime
Minister Tony Abbott has led to it being dubbed a
"political witch hunt."

For all we know, political motives might well have
informed the federal government's decision to initiate this
royal commission. But even if this is so - it does not mean
that the work of the Royal Commission can or should be
dismissed.

The question of the extent to which corrupt individuals
and practices infect the trade union movement is of
vital public importance - precisely because unions play
such an important role in Australian society.

However, it is precisely because of the importance of this
inquiry that any possibility of bias must be removed.

I have continually stressed in this discussion that Justice Dyson
Heydon is regarded by his colleagues as a man of
unimpeachable integrity. I was therefore somewhat disappointed
that he did not step down from the Commission because justice
must not only seem to be done. It must be perceived to be done.
And that has always been his stance as well.

Now he finds himself at the centre of controversy about the
propriety of his continuing to sit as a Royal Commissioner
inquiring into alleged corruption within Australia's union
movement.

We can only trust that he will remain independent in the
conduct of his judicial duties.

my apologies for the typo.

I meant to say that not only justice must be done.
It must be perceived to be done.

@Fox, Thursday, 3 September 2015 10:23:03 AM

Either you can fault the Justice's reasons for ruling or you cannot. Here again,

http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Hearings/Documents/2015/Evidence31August2015/ReasonsforRulingonDisqualificationApplicationdated31August2015.pdf

Given that you make no attempt whatsoever to counter his reasons with countering reasons of your own, your attempts at sly manipulation through bringing him and the RC into ill-repute are deceitful.

That is irrational, so what do you gain from doing it?

Through no fault of his own, Justice Heydon finds himself
at the centre of controversy about the propriety of his
continuing to sit as a Royal Commissioner inquiring into
alleged corruption within Australia's union movement.

This does not mean that the work of the Royal Commission
can or should be dismissed. The question of the extent
to which corrupt individuals and practices infect the
trade union movement is of vital public importance -
precisely because unions play such an important role in
Australian society.

It is precisely because of the importance of this inquiry
that any possibility of bias must be removed.

Foxy,

To surmise that Heydon wasn't aware the the Barwick address was a Liberal Party "do" stretches the bounds of credulity.

The only area where he may be excused is that he thought that TURC would be done and dusted by then - Abbott extended it.

Fox, "It is precisely because of the importance of this inquiry
that any possibility of bias must be removed"

It has been. Here again,

http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Hearings/Documents/2015/Evidence31August2015/ReasonsforRulingonDisqualificationApplicationdated31August2015.pdf

You have NO counter to his reasons. You are reduced to throwing mud.

That is irrational, so what do you gain from doing it?

Foxy,

It is good that both you and the ACTU lawyers admitted that Dyson is of impeccable character and is not biased, and that there are serious corruption problems in the unions.

The question is not whether the unions should be investigated but who should do it. The problem with Labor is that it will never do so, and has put many legal roadblocks in place to prevent scrutiny of the unions and is desperately trying to stop TURC.

You have two choices: 1 Investigation into union corruption under the libs or 2 No action whatsoever under labor.

The ACTU case against Dyson was that because of his acceptance of a request to deliver a law lecture at a function organised by Liberal lawyers there could be a perception of bias. The problem is that the perception of bias needs to substantial, and in Dyson dismissal of the ACTU case, he gave examples of judges giving similar lectures to party functions from both sides with not a single suggestion of bias from anyone, and therefore was insufficient.

The ACTU is free to challenge this in the courts, but I doubt they will as they are likely to get a hiding.

This is the first royal commission into unions so there is nothing to compare it with. Of course it must continue but not with Dyson. It will forever have a shadow hanging over it. He should have dismissed himself and another commissioner appointed.

Dear Poirot, Shadow Minister, and Doog,

Justice Dyson Heydon made it quite clear that what happened was that
he had overlooked certain material facts in terms of the
invitation and he's now in a sense created an excuse for
everybody who comes before him who has similarly overlooked
things. That's probably going to plague the Commissioner and the
Royal Commission for the rest of the hearings.

That is most unfortunate given the importance of the issues to
be addressed.

Also according to the 7.30 Report there is also one more legal
avenue that the union movement is still considering. That is to
seek a judicial review in the Federal or High Court.
Instead of the Commissioner deciding his own fate - it would be
in the hands of a judge. Unfortunately that will further politicise
the Royal Commission and further complicate its position and
potentially delay its work as well.

All this could have been avoided had the Commissioner resigned
and the Royal Commission had gone ahead under a different
Commissioner. This would have pulled the rug out from
the union and Labor's objections.

Fox,

Your faux concern for the Royal Commission is laughable.

Once again, you have NO counter to his reasons.

http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Hearings/Documents/2015/Evidence31August2015/ReasonsforRulingonDisqualificationApplicationdated31August2015.pdf

You are reduced to insinuations, throwing mud.

That is irrational, so what do you gain from doing it?

*OTB*

Our thanks for your link to "the reasons" which I have now had a quick read through.

For the most part, I thought Dyson made a good showing of himself, with strong and well reasoned argument. I thought there were very few weaknesses but there are a few in my unqualified opinion.

1. Dyson makes a compelling case visa vi what constitutes a "fair minded" person. However, it reads to me as a "fair minded" person who is capable of a "high level of reasoning." Thus, I believe it is questionable to expect a lay person to reason through the issues in the same manner that he describes and I note further that I cannot recall that he really defined the capacity of a "lay person."

(and if this thread develops I'll pull a few examples of that out if anyone is interested, though it does not appear that many posters have actually read it, as OTB is correct in pointing out)

2. The second area of weakness concerns the event itself. Whilst I can accept it was not a fund raiser per se, even people who did not attend but who were invited could still donate. And if that is the usual practice with these kind of events then it again raises thee question of whether a "fair minded" & "lay person" could have reasoned out that it was not inappropriate for him to attend irrespective.

t.b.c.

More broadly, I have from time to time heard various senior members of the judiciary state that it is extremely important that they are "well" paid as this removes any temptation of bribery or other corrupt practice. Whilst it is not a position that I personally agree with it is a soap box that they all appear to stand on willingly.

Thus, I suspect that most of them when engaged with work of this nature would adopt the precautionary principal and not go anywhere near these kinds of activities period because even putting aside "fair minded" people, what of the "unfair minded" people who respond to slogans and dog whistle politics?

Clearly both sides of politics thrive on dumbing things down to no small extent and even at times harness people up by inflaming their prejudices. The media then get on board and reason at times goes out the window. As others here often say, "Why let facts get in the way of a good story?"

Thus, he should have known better than to have anything to do with this at all, and because there is always a temptation for some unscrupulous and criminal elements to attempt to sway the judicial process, he and his assistant counsel were less than diligent in ascertaining exactly what this event was all about. Again, he should have known better.

3. As for Dyson being technically challenged, well, it's pretty pathetic from a modern perspective but we must remember that these doddering old wig parasites really are in no small way a product of a by-gone era.

Thus, whilst extremely lame, I can accept that his skills are deficient in this regard and I expect that there are more than a few others who are in the same boat.

However, since guvments have been using email, I cannot think of one email that I have ever received where the substance of the response has not been contained within an attachment.

t.b.c.

Thereafter, I think that Dyson ought be very thankful for the email from Mr Winslowe else he otherwise likely would have gone ahead and given the address.

On that ground, he ought be looking for another assistant who should have protected him from that, especially as Dyson is apparently in his words, "notoriously" lame when it comes to email.

So *Shadow Minister* I wouldn't be so sure that an appeal is certain to go down.

And given that Dyson has done an excellent job in highlighting the deficiencies of the ACTU and CFMEU's cases, I expect that if there is a next time, that they will do a far better job.

And of course, the "apprehension of bias" will grow in the mind of the "unfair minded," a matter of fact which I expect the alp is counting on.

So, more Union blood must be spilled, and whilst the main stream fights it out, Xenophon and the others have more room to grow.

You can not remove a perception of bias, no matter what he does you can not eliminate the lib Logo .

Doog,

We know that you think that any one that even wears blue socks is biased.

The point is that apprehended bias does not think that some pillock in the city thinks that they may be biased, it is that the person under consideration has a sufficient interest in the outcome of the case / inquiry that he is likely to make a decision based on that interest. Dyson showed clearly that the ACTU had no base for that accusation.

Justice Dyson Heydon has been placed in an invidious position
because of the considerable controversy surrounding
political donations and fundraising events. The mere suggestion
that a Royal Commissioner should be involved in such events will
carry the taint of scandal. This is damage of a kind that
can rarely be undone by a denial of culpability.

The key question is: does the integrity of an individual (Heydon)
outweigh the public interest in maintaining the highest levels
of trust and confidence in the institution of a Royal
Commission?

Judges are routinely required to decide if they should excuse
themselves in cases where there is a perception of bias.
If the perception does exist especially if linked to facts such as
the fundraising invitation then that is typically the course
of action a judge will take.

In some regards we're told that the standards applied to a
Royal Commissioner are even higher, as the scope of their
authority is wider than that of a judge. Justice Heydon has
argued in his own judgements that the mere perception of bias
should lead to a judge being disqualified from hearing a case in
which this concern arises.

In a 2011 High Court Judgement, Heydon wrote:

"It is fundamental to the administration of justice that the
judge be neutral. It is for this reason that the appearance
of departure from neutrality is a ground for disqualification."

"It is the perception of the hypothetical observer that is the
yardstick," Heydon declared.

It is therefore Justice Heydon's own reasoning that provides the
answer to the question of what he should have done.

Dear Paul,

Thank You for this discussion.

For me it has now run its course.

I look forward to the next one.

My apologies.

Please excuse my typo.

I meant to address my Thanks to Steve for this
discussion.

Dyson was caught out so how can you say there is no basis for perceived bias. Perceived to me means there may be a chance of bias. [ It’s in the future]

There is no ruling for something that is perceived. It will always remain a possibility. You have 70 % of au saying the same thing

Fox, "It is therefore Justice Heydon's own reasoning that provides the answer to the question of what he should have done."

Correct and he rightly continued with the Royal Commission.

Now, why would any well-intentioned, reasonable citizen want to sledge the learned Justice and the Royal Commission he heads? It just doesn't figure does it?

For starters, the Royal Commission has already resulted in some very nasty grubs coming to the attention of the police.

Good on the Justice for having the courage to continue despite the sledging. Because there are many small people, unionist and business owner alike who have had the courage to come forward and have placed themselves at risk of reprisals from union heavies and the nasties associated with them.

Let me again state quite clearly for those whose
comprehension skills are in difficulty.
If I'm repeating things already covered in this
discussion, my apologies.

From what we know Justice Heydon accepted in good
faith, what he believed to be an invitation to
deliver an apolitical speech to members of the NSW
Bar Association. The event was open to any member of
the NSW bar - irrespective of their political
persuasions. It seems the organisers of the event
betrayed Justice Heydon's good intentions by not
adequately disclosing to him that the occasion was in
fact a fund-raising opportunity for the Liberal Party
as the printed invitation makes clear.

Given that he was a sitting royal commissioner there was a
clear obligation on the organisers to make the nature of the
event abundantly clear to Justice Heydon, rather than to
rely on him to open an attachment to the email he was sent.

Immediately upon being alerted to the relevant facts Justice
Heydon withdrew from the event. His response was entirely
proper. However we were still left to ask if, despite this
the Liberal Party had rendered Justice Heydon's position as
royal commissioner untenable?

Blamesless as he undoubtedly was - Justice Heydon had been
placed in an invidious position by the NSW Liberal Party.
And questioning the decision he made to stay on - is not
sledging the man personally, but asking questions about
his position as royal commissioner is quite valid especially
since he has argued in his own judgements that the mere
perception of bias should lead to any judge being disqualified
from hearing a case in which this concern arises.

Fox,

Nothing new.

Why would any well-intentioned, reasonable citizen want to sledge the learned Justice and the Royal Commission he heads? It just doesn't figure does it?

otb,

Now you're simply stirring.

Nothing new.

They are fair questions but you consistently duck.

Why would any well-intentioned, reasonable citizen want to sledge the learned Justice and the Royal Commission he heads? It just doesn't figure does it?

otb,

I can't be held responsible for your lack of
comprehension skills. You have a very bad habit of
accusing posters whose views don't agree with yours
of "sledging, of negating their opinions by alleging
negatives about them and of impugning their motives.
This need to stop if you want to continue to receive
responses to your posts. Otherwise they will be ignored.

Fox,

Nice try of trying to put it back on me.

However you are the one who is casting aspersions at the Justice (while denying it of course) and the Royal Commission.

Why would any well-intentioned, reasonable citizen want to sledge the learned Justice and the Royal Commission he heads? It just doesn't figure does it?

otb,

Please explain to me how exactly am I "sledging"
Justice Heydon and the Royal Commission when I have
made it abundantly clear throughout this discussion
that that it was the organisers of the event who
betrayed Justice Heydon's good intentions by not
adequately disclosing to him that the occasion was,
in fact a fund raiser opportunity for the Liberal Party -
as the printed invitations make clear.

All I am doing is questioning the fact that he was a
sitting royal commissioner there was a clear obligation
on the organisers to make the nature of the event
abundantly clear to Justice Heydon, rather than to rely
on him to open an attachment to the email he was sent.
Immediately upon being alerted to the relevant
facts Justice Heydon withdrew from the event.
His then response was entirely proper.

What is being questioned is his decision to stay on as
royal commissioner due to the already explained circumstances
in which he has been placed by the NSW Liberal Party.
I firmly believe that the Royal Commission should go ahead.
I also believe that the NSW Liberal Party owes Justice Heydon
a formal apology for having placed him in the position that he
found himself.

If you still don't understand all of this - there's nothing
further that I can say except to assume that all you're really
interested in your own mission and anything that I may say is
of no interest to you. I have been explaining things to you.
You accuse me of "ducking," and "sledging," which makes me
think that either you are stupid, or you don't even bother to
read my explanations and the only thing you're capable of is
the same repetitive rants.

There's nothing more for me to say.

Foxy,

You said " Justice Heydon .... has argued in his own judgements that the mere perception of bias should lead to any judge being disqualified from hearing a case in which this concern arises."

That's not true at all.

He said that a Judge should recuse himself is there is apprehended bias. Apprehended bias is a long way from mere perception. If mere perception was sufficient to cause a judge to recuse himself, no judge would ever sit any case. The requirement is that the "bias" must be that a reasonable man could expect that this alone would be sufficient to affect the judge's decision.

The ACTU has not yet presented anything that meets that criteria.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Because of the considerable controversy surrounding
political donations and fund-raising events the mere
suggestion that a royal commissioner should be involved
in such events will carry the taint of scandal.
This is damage of a kind that can rarely be undone by a
denial of culpability.

As stated earlier - judges are routinely (if infrequently)
required to decide if they should excuse themselves in
cases where there is a perception of bias. If that perception
does exist especially if linked to facts such as the
fund-raising invitation, then that is typically the course
of action a judge will take.

In some regards the standards applied to a royal commissioner
are even higher, as the scope of their authority is wider
than that of a judge.

Justice Heydon has argued in his own judgements that the mere
perception of bias should lead to a judge being disqualified
from hearing a case in which this concern arises.

In a 2011 High Court Judgement, he wrote:

"It is fundamental to the administration of justice that the
judge be neutral. It is for this reason that the appearance
of departure from neutrality is a ground for disqualification."

"It is the perception of the hypothetical observer that is
the yardstick," Justice Heydon declared.

It is therefore Justice Heydon's own reasoning that provides
the answer to the question of what he should have done.

I am not suggesting for one moment that the royal commission
should not go ahead. It should. Nor am I blaming Justice
Heydon - he accepted in good faith, what he believed to be
an invitation to deliver an apolitical speech to members of
the NSW Bar Association.

It is the organisers of the event who
betrayed Justice Heydon's good intentions by not adequately
disclosing to him that the occasion was, in fact a
fund-raising opportunity for the Liberal Party as the
printed invitation made clear.

Fox,

You quote a gentleman with a PhD in philosophy. What legal training and experience does he have that sets him up as an authority to prefer to Justice Dyson Heydon?

Secondly, the newspapers article to which you refer but do not quote so any here can refer to it, predates Justice Dyson Heydon's ruling and publication of his reasons.

Where then has your authority demonstrated superior or at least equivalent expertise to the Justice and where has he, or you, dispelled the Justice's reasons?

Foxy,

The appearance of neutrality by a hypothetical observer is a far cry from mere perception of bias.

The standard would be that an uninvolved reasonable observer could conclude from Dyson's actions that he was no longer sufficiently neutral to adjudicate the case. Dyson's lengthy response shows clearly that this standard has not been met. That the ACTU is not challenging it in court shows that they know this too.

I am also amused that Penny Wrong and Mark Doofus are trying to get the senate to petition the GG to dismiss Heydon. I suppose that it hasn't occurred to these pinheads that given Labor's wailing and gnashing of teeth when Whitlam was dismissed by the GG at the senate's request, their senate petition essentially gives Whitlam's dismissal a great big tick of legitimacy.

However, since Labor has yet to appeal to the high court, the GG, whose mandate is to act when all other avenues are exhausted, will be unable to do anything.

otb,

What part of
LEAVE ME ALONE!
do you not understand.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Obviously we see things differently in this issue.

Let us leave it at that.

Cheers.

What links does Penny Wong have with any of the unions challenging the Justice and the Royal Commission?

What reliance if any has Wong on the support of union controlled factions in Labor to stitch up their continued support for ministerial and other positions or for pre-selection for that matter?

The public support the Royal Commission. This will backfire badly on Labor and Greens.