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?