Download PDF

Commonwealth of Australia

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption

ISBN 978-1-925290-54-7 (Print) ISBN 978-1-925290-55-4 (Online)

Published December 2015

Commonwealth of Australia

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption

ISBN 978-1-925290-54-7 (Print) ISBN 978-1-925290-55-4 (Online)

Published December 2015

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption Final Report : Volume

1

Final Report VOLUME ONE

December 2015

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption

Final Report VOLUME ONE

December 2015

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption

ISBN 978-1-925290-54-7 (Print) ISBN 978-1-925290-55-4 (Online)

© Commonwealth of Australia 2015 All material presented in this publication is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (www.creativecommons.org/licenses). For the avoidance of doubt, this means this licence only applies to material as set out in this document.

The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website as is the full legal code for the CC BY 4.0 licence (www.creativecommons.org/licenses).

Use of the Coat of Arms

The terms under which the Coat of Arms can be used are detailed on the It's an Honour website (www.itsanhonour.gov.au).

Contact us Enquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document are welcome at: Attorney-General’s Department 3-5 National Cct BARTON ACT 2600 Email: copyright@ag.gov.au

SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

APPENDICES

VOLUME 2

PART 1 MARTIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA

1.1 MARITIME EMPLOYEE TRAINING FUND

PART 2 TRANSPORT WORKERS’ UNION

2.1 TRANSPORT WORKERS’ UNION (WESTERN AUSTRALIAN BRANCH) MISAPPROPRIATION OF BRANCH FUNDS

PART 3 ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION

3.1 ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION BRANCH OF AUSTRALIA, NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH

3.2 CONDUCT OF OFFICIALS OF THE CEPU ACT

PART 4 NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS

4.1 NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS, NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH

PART 5 HEALTH SERVICES UNION

5.1 THE PETER MAC SETTLEMENT

5.2 THE HEALTH SERVICES UNION, MICHAEL WILLIAMSON, KATHERINE JACKSON AND CRAIG THOMSON

APPENDICES

VOLUME 3

PART 6 CFMEU ACT

6.1 INTRODUCTION

6.2 HALAFIHI KIVALU

6.3 INAPPROPRIATE PRESSURE TO ENTER INTO ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS

6.4 MEMBERSHIP ISSUES

6.5 ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT

6.6 CREATIVE SAFETY INITIATIVES AND CONSTRUCTION CHARITABLE WORKS

6.7 FURTHER CONCLUSIONS REGARDING CFMEU CONDUCT

PART 7 CFMEU NSW

7.1 CBUS LEAK TO THE CFMEU

7.2 PAYMENTS TO ORGANISERS

7.3 DONATIONS & EBAS

7.4 BUILDING TRADES GROUP DRUG AND ALCOHOL COMMITTEE

7.5 COMMITTEE TO DEFEND TRADE UNION RIGHTS

7.6 U-PLUS/COVERFORCE

VOLUME 4

PART 8 CFMEU QLD

8.1 CORNUBIA HOUSE

8.2 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION

8.3 HINDMARSH

APPENDIX

PART 9 CFMEU VIC

9 ANDREW ZAF

PART 10 AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION

10.1 INTRODUCTION

10.2 CLEANEVENT

APENDICES

10.3 THIESS JOHN HOLLAND

10.4 PAID EDUCATION LEAVE

10.5 ACI

10.6 CHIQUITA MUSHROOMS

10.7 UNIBUILT

10.8 WINSLOW CONSTRUCTORS

10.9 MISCELLANEOUS MEMBERSHIP ISSUES

10.10 DOWNER EDI

PART 11 INCOLINK

11 INCOLINK

APPENDIX

PART 12 INDUSTRY 2020

12 INDUSTRY 2020, HSU NO 1 BRANCH ELECTIONS AND DAVID ASMAR

VOLUME 5

LAW REFORM

1 INTRODUCTION

2 REGULATION OF UNIONS

APPENDIX

3 REGULATION OF UNION OFFICIALS

4 CORRUPTING BENEFITS

5 REGULATION OF RELEVANT ENTITIES

6 ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS

7 COMPETITION ISSUES

8 BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION

APPENDIX

9 RIGHTS OF ENTRY

10 REFORM OF THE ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 (CTH)

APPENDICES

REPORT Volume 1

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption

RoyalCommission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption

28 December 2015

His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Ret'd) Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia Government House CANBERRA ACT 2600

Your Excellency

In accordance with the Letters Patent issued to me on 13 March 2014, as amended by Letters Patent dated 30 October 2014, I have made inquiries and prepared a Final Report of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption.

I am also submitting this report to their Excellencies the Governors of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania.

In addition to this, I have also prepared a Confidential Report. It is recommended that the Confidential Report not be made public.

I also return herewith the Letters Patent.

Yours sincerely,

J D Heydon

Commissioner

GPO Box 2477, SYDNEY, NSW 2001Telephone 1800 22 12 4S www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au ABN 92 661124 436

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO TRADE UNION GOVERNANCE AND CORRUPTION

VOLUME 1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Subject Page

A - THE ROYAL COMMISSION:GENERAL OVERVIEW 8

Preamble 8

Letters Patent 13

Financial matters 14

Hearings 14

Other activities 15

Location of hearings 16

Structure of this Report 17

Terms of Reference 18

1

Subject Page

Selection of Case Studies 21

The Interim Report 23

The Police Taskforce 24

B - THE ROYAL COMMISSION: OVERVIEW OF 2015 25

Some common themes 27

C - THE ROYAL COMMISSION: OVERVIEW OF 2014 33

Overview of the matters investigated in 2014 34

Case studies commenced in 2014 but not addressed or concluded

in the Interim Report

41

D - THE FACT FINDING PROCESS 44

The difference between a Royal Commission and a criminal court 45

The case study technique 47

E - FINDINGS 51

The rules of evidence 51

Standard of proof 52

Findings based on evidence and submissions 54

2

Subject Page

Finding that a contravention or breach of duty ‘may’ have

occurred

55

Findings of criminal conduct 56

F - MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL

FAIRNESS

58

Practice Direction 1 59

Legal representatives and due process 63

Submissions 65

Practice Direction 2 and further practice directions 66

Summary of the measures taken to ensure procedural fairness 67

G - EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 69

The rule in Browne v Dunn 70

Double hearsay 73

H - THIS COMMISSION AND THE UNIONS 75

The ACTU 77

Legal representatives for parties 79

I - VOLUME TWO OF THIS REPORT 83

3

Subject Page

Part one: the MUA 84

Part two: TWU (WA) 84

Part three: CEPU 85

Part four: NUW 86

Part five: HSU 88

J - VOLUME THREE OF THIS REPORT 90

Part six: CFMEU ACT 90

Part seven: CFMEU NSW 94

K - VOLUME FOUR OF THIS REPORT 99

Part eight: CFMEU QLD 99

Part nine: CFMEU VIC 102

Part ten: AWU 103

Part eleven: Incolink 112

Part twelve: Industry 2020 113

L - VOLUME FIVE OF THIS REPORT 114

M - CONCLUSION 116

4

Subject Page

APPENDIX 1 - Law Reform Recommendations 117

APPENDIX 2 - Referrals 145

APPENDIX 3 - Letters Patent issued on 13 March 2014 by the

Governor-General

167

APPENDIX 4 - Letters Patent issued on 30 October 2014 by the

Governor-General

173

APPENDIX 5 - Letters Patent issued on 9 April 2014 by the

Governor of New South Wales

177

APPENDIX 6 - Letters Patent issued on 14 January 2015 by the

Governor of New South Wales

183

APPENDIX 7 - Letters Patent issued on 27 March 2014 by the

Governor of Queensland

189

APPENDIX 8 - Letters Patent issued on 18 December 2014 by

the Governor of Queensland

195

APPENDIX 9 - Letters Patent issued on 22 May 2014 by the

Governor of South Australia

197

APPENDIX 10 - Letters Patent issued on 18 June 2015 by the

Governor of South Australia

203

APPENDIX 11 - Letters Patent issued on 13 May 2014 by the

Governor of Tasmania

205

5

Subject Page

APPENDIX 12 - Letters Patent issued on 10 February 2015 by

the Governor of Tasmania

211

APPENDIX 13 - Letters Patent issued on 15 April 2014 by the

Governor of Victoria

213

APPENDIX 14 - Letters Patent issued on 3 June 2014 by the

Governor of Victoria

221

APPENDIX 15 - Letters Patent issued on 8 July 2014 by the

Administrator of Western Australia

229

APPENDIX 16 - Letters Patent issued on 29 April 2015 by the

Governor of Western Australia

235

APPENDIX 17 - Practice Direction 1 237

APPENDIX 18 - Practice Direction 2 257

APPENDIX 19 - Practice Direction 3 263

APPENDIX 20 - Practice Direction 9 265

APPENDIX 21 - Practice Direction 13 267

APPENDIX 22 - List of Witnesses and Representatives 271

APPENDIX 23 - Information Sheet for Potentially-Affected

Parties

299

6

Subject Page

APPENDIX 24 - Extracts from the Royal Commissions Act 1902

(Cth)

303

APPENDIX 25 - Extracts from the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) 311

APPENDIX 26 - Extracts from the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) 317

APPENDIX 27 - Extracts from the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth)

321

7

THE ROYAL COMMISSION: GENERAL OVERVIEW A -

Preamble

1. Sir Harry Gibbs was universally admired for probity. Near the end of

his long life, much of which had been devoted to controversies about

the meaning of the Constitution, he concluded that it did not matter

much for the health of the nation what the Constitution meant, so long

as one condition was satisfied. That was that the inherent decency of

the Australian people continued.

2. Can one abandon any worries about the complex field of law which

regulates trade union officials with that comforting reflection?

3. At the outset it may induce a sense of realism to consider a few

examples from the activities of officials in six unions. One is the

Australian Workers’ Union (AWU). Another is the Construction,

Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). A third is the

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal,

Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU). A fourth is

the Health Services Union (HSU). A fifth is the Transport Workers

Union of Australia (TWU). Finally, there is the National Union of

Workers (NUW).

4. The case studies examined have revealed widespread misconduct that

has taken place in every polity in Australia except for the Northern

Territory. There is little that is controversial about the underlying

facts. Almost all of the underlying facts have been established by

8

admissions to the Commission, incontrovertible documents, decisions

of courts and tribunals or well-corroborated testimony. There has been

financial misconduct by two AWU State Secretaries in Western

Australia in the mid-nineties, Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt. Bruce

Wilson continued his behaviour in Victoria as State Secretary of the

AWU there. A State Secretary of the AWU in Victoria in the first part

of this century, Cesar Melhem, has been responsible for numerous

actions favouring the interests of the union over the members which

may be breaches of legal duty. Two TWU WA State Secretaries,

James McGiveron and Richard Burton, in 2012-2013 depleted union

funds to the extent of over $600,000 in relation to what may have been

the unauthorised purchase of expensive cars and the arrangement of an

unauthorised redundancy. The National Secretary of the AWU, Tony

Sheldon, may have lied to the Australian Labor Party about the number

of financial members that union has. In the HSU a number of State or

National Secretaries (Michael Williamson, Katherine Jackson and

Craig Thomson) have used union funds for their own purposes.

Michael Williamson and Craig Thomson have been convicted of

criminal offences in this regard. Katherine Jackson may also have

committed a crime by obtaining $250,000 from an employer by false

pretences. A further HSU State Secretary, Diana Asmar, has arranged

for right of entry tests to be sat by persons other than the candidate.1 In

the ACT the Secretary of the CFMEU, Dean Hall, and most of his

officials may have participated in a variety of forms of misconduct on

building sites. Further, officials have either taken payments from

employers, in the case of Halafihi Kivalu, or failed to respond

satisfactorily to what he was doing or rumours of what he was doing

1

Those findings have been confirmed in the Fair Work Commission: [2015] FWC 3359 (Wilson V-P) and [2015] FWC FB 5261 (Hatcher V-P, Hamilton DP, Johns C).

9

(all other officials). In the Victorian CFMEU the State Secretary, John

Setka, and the Assistant State Secretary, Shaun Reardon, may have

committed blackmail. In Queensland the State Secretary for the

Builders’ Labourers’ Federation of Queensland (BLF), David Hanna,

may have fraudulently made additions to his house. He, together with

the Queensland State Secretary of the CFMEU, Michael Ravbar,

together with various officials and employees participated in massive

destruction of potentially relevant documents. In the CFMEU NSW

the State Secretary, Brian Parker, may have committed various acts of

misconduct, including procuring delivery of confidential records of a

superannuation trust fund, Cbus, which should have remained in the

custody of the trustee. An organiser, Darren Greenfield may have

made a death threat and taken bribes. The State Secretary of the

Electrical Division of Victorian CEPU, Dean Mighell, and the

President, Gary Carruthers, used union funds on litigation commenced

in what may have been an abuse of process. In New South Wales the

state secretary of NUW NSW, Derrick Belan, his brother Nick Belan,

an organiser, and their niece, an employee, Danielle O’Brien, and

possibly others, may have misappropriated union funds. Other

officials may have breached the law in relation to that conduct and

their handling of Derrick Belan’s departure from office.

5. Then there is misconduct on building sites directed to employers,

contractors and government inspectors all over the country from

Brisbane to Sydney to Melbourne to Adelaide, and generally carried

out by more junior officials. But senior officials can be involved as

well. At a blockade of a Grocon site by the CFMEU a driver of a

minibus, who happened to be suffering from cancer, attempted to drive

out of the blockaded area. He described how CFMEU members

10

surrounded his van, yelling abuse and punching the windscreen. One

of them was John Setka, then Assistant State Secretary, who was found

by Tracey J to have used foul and abusive language, to have punched

the windscreen, and to have shouted: ‘I hope you die of your cancer’.2

Is this in the great Keir Hardie traditions of fraternal solidarity in the

face of monopoly capitalism? Nor did John Setka confine his foul and

abusive language to blockades. He repeatedly employed the same

tactics, using words which will not be repeated here.3

6. There has been much perjury. Maria Butera and Lisa Zanatta,

executives of Cbus, have admitted to it, and have said they will plead

guilty to charges of it. Brian Parker’s evidence has been referred to

prosecuting authorities for consideration of whether he may have

committed perjury. But a huge amount of the testimony given in

hearings has been false to the knowledge of the witnesses.

7. Nor is it only union officials who have been involved. Adverse

recommendations have been made about numerous executives from

large commercial organisations, including Dino Strano, Peter Smoljko

(a former AWU official), Julian Rzesniowiecki, Mike Gilhome,

Michael Deegan, Adam Moore, Mathew McAllum, David Atkin,

Maria Butera, Lisa Zanatta and Tony Sirsen. There are others whom

the inquiry has revealed to have paid money to Halafihi Kivalu in the

Australian Capital Territory - Elias Taleb, Medwhat Eleisawy, Tony

Bassil, Jian Yu He and John Domitrovic. These persons are

2

Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2015] FCA 225 at [192]. 3 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption Interim Report (2014), Vol 2, ch 8.10, pp 1557-1558 [89]-[94].

11

contractors or developers in the Australian Capital Territory. Among

the companies from which those executives came or with which they

were associated are well known names - Cbus, the Thiess Group, the

John Holland Group, the ACI Group, Downer EDI Engineering Power

Pty Ltd, Winslow Constructors Pty Ltd and the Mirvac Group.

8. This conduct has taken place among a wide variety of unions and

industries. Those responsible have ranged in seniority from the most

junior levels to the most senior. Many State Secretaries have been

involved. Of course what has been described is not universal. It may

not even be typical. But you can look at any area of Australia. You

can look at any unionised industry. You can look at any type of

industrial union. You can select any period of time. You can take any

rank of officeholder, from Secretaries down to very junior employees.

You can search for any type of misbehaviour. You will find rich

examples over the last 23 years in the Australian trade union

movement.

9. These aberrations cannot be regarded as isolated. They are not the

work of a few rogue unions, or a few rogue officials. The misconduct

exhibits great variety. It is widespread. It is deep-seated.

10. Nor can the list be regarded as complete. It would be utterly naïve to

think that what has been uncovered is anything other than the small tip

of an enormous iceberg. It is inherently very hard to identify most

types of misconduct by union officials. So far as it is typified by hard

core corruption, there is no ‘victim’ to complain, and the parties to the

corruption have a strong incentive to keep it secret. Whistleblowers

are unlikely to be found for various reasons including a well-founded

12

fear of reprisals. The same is true of misconduct on building sites and

other aspects of the misbehaviour that has been revealed. The very

existence of a Royal Commission tends to cause a temporary reduction

in misconduct. But it is clear that in many parts of the world

constituted by Australian trade union officials, there is room for louts,

thugs, bullies, thieves, perjurers, those who threaten violence, errant

fiduciaries and organisers of boycotts.

Letters Patent

11. The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption

was established by Letters Patent issued by the Governor General on

13 March 2014. The Letters Patent required and authorised the

Commission to inquire into the matters set out in paras (a) - (k) of the

Letters (the Terms of Reference). Pursuant to the Letters Patent

delivery of this Report was required on or by 31 December 2014.

12. Subsequently equivalent Letters Patent were issued by the Governor

(or Administrator) of each of the States.

13. On 30 October 2014 the Governor General amended the Letters Patent

in two ways. First, the deadline for delivery of the Commissioner’s

report was extended to 31 December 2015. Secondly, an additional

Term of Reference was included, namely (ia). The additional term

required the Commission to inquire into any criminal or otherwise

unlawful act or omission undertaken for the purpose of facilitating or

concealing any conduct or matter mentioned in paras (g) to (i) of the

Terms of Reference.

13

14. Again, the Governors (or Administrator) of the various States issued

amended Letters Patent amended in the same way as the

Commonwealth Letters Patent. Copies of the original and the amended

Letters Patent are at Appendices 1-14 of this Volume of the Report.

Financial matters

15. As of 30 November 2015, expenditure for the Office of the Royal

Commission (ORC), the police taskforces of NSW, Victoria and

Queensland, the Attorney General’s Department’s financial assistance

to witnesses and Commonwealth legal representation was under budget

at $45,905,000. This figure does not include funds paid by the

Australian Federal police in relation to the taskforces.

Hearings

16. The Commission existed for approximately 21 months. There were

189 hearing days. There were 155 days of public hearings. There

were an additional 34 days of private hearings. On 12 days private

hearings were conducted on the same days as public hearings. Thus in

total there were 46 days of private hearings.

17. The Commission received evidence from 505 individual witnesses in

public hearings. In the great majority of cases those witnesses gave

evidence orally and were examined by counsel assisting or an affected

party or both. In some cases, if neither counsel assisting nor an

affected party had any questions, the evidence of the witness was

received by tendering a witness statement. Some witnesses appeared

14

on several occasions for the purposes of cross-examination or for

giving further evidence. That arose either because the evidence of a

given witness was relevant to more than one case study or because the

evidence in a given case study came out in stages during which the

evidentiary picture changed. Examples of witnesses within the former

category include Brian Parker and Michael Ravbar. Examples of

witnesses in the latter category include Brian Parker, Maria Butera,

Lisa Zanatta and David Atkin.

Other activities

18. In addition the Commission has:

(a) issued over 2000 notices to produce;

(b) conducted public hearings in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane,

Perth and Canberra;

(c) organised an academic dialogue, attended by distinguished

academics from various universities including the Australian

National University, the University of Melbourne, Charles

Sturt University and the University of Technology;

(d) issued on 19 May 2015 a lengthy Discussion Paper which

raised 80 specific questions for consideration and debate. A

large number of submissions was received from interested

parties in response to the Discussion Paper. These are

considered further in Volume 5 of this Report (and see

Section L below);

15

(e) published issues papers on the funding of union elections, the

protections available to whistleblowers, the duties of union

officials and relevant entities;

(f) received and reviewed many thousands of documents,

including accounting and financial records; and

(g) consulted numerous stakeholders including law enforcement

agencies, employment and workplace relations departments

and tribunals, representatives of the union movement,

academics and industry and employer representatives. A list

of stakeholders consulted is given in Appendix 13 to the

Interim Report.4

Location of hearings

19. The Commission’s premises were at 55 Market Street in Sydney. The

majority of the Commission’s hearings were held there.

20. Since the Letters Patent were issued by the Commonwealth and every

State, and since the conduct examined took place all over the country,

the inquiry may be said to have had a national character. In a perfect

world, perhaps, there would have been more hearings outside Sydney,

and hearings in States and regions in which the Commission did not sit.

4

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 2, p 1801-1802.

16

21. However, locating suitable hearing rooms outside Sydney at short

notice was often difficult. To go to them involved very considerable

expense. That expense included the expense of setting up

arrangements for security, organising transcription and web streaming

services and facilities for media representatives, and paying for travel

and accommodation of not only Commission staff but also the lawyers

representing affected persons who were funded by the Commonwealth.

It was more economical to hold the majority of the hearings in Sydney.

In other words, it was invariably cheaper to fly non-Sydney witnesses

to Sydney than to fly the Commission itself, and lawyers resident in

Sydney, to other parts of Australia. To take the Australian Workers’

Union - Workplace Reform Association Inc case study as an example,

it was cheaper to fly witnesses from Melbourne, Adelaide and other

places to Sydney than the opposite. Non-Sydney witnesses deserve

praise for putting up with the inconvenience they had to suffer.

Structure of this Report

22. This Report is organised into six Volumes. This first Volume is

introductory.

23. Volume 2 deals with case studies involving a number of unions

excluding the CFMEU. In particular, Volume 2 includes the

completion of a number of case studies heard or part heard in 2014 and

an analysis of various case studies heard in 2015. A summary of the

content of the second volume is in Section I below.

17

24. Volume 3 deals with case studies involving the CFMEU. Again it

includes the completion of a number of case studies heard or part heard

in 2014 and an analysis of further case studies heard in 2015. A

summary of the content of the third volume is in Section J below.

25. Volume 4 largely deals with case studies involving the CFMEU and

the AWU. A summary of the content of Volume 4 is in Section K

below.

26. Volume 5 deals with policy and law reform. It makes a number of

recommendations. A list of those recommendations is contained in

Appendix 1 to this introductory Volume of the Report.

27. Appendix 2 of this introductory Volume comprises a list of all referrals

which have been made.

28. Volume 6 is a confidential Report.

Terms of Reference

29. The Terms of Reference are broad. They are not confined by time or

industry. They identify five particular employee associations: the

AWU; the CFMEU; the CEPU; the HSU; and the TWU. But the

Terms of Reference were not limited to those five unions. And in fact

the inquiries conducted extended well beyond them.

30. On the other hand the Terms of Reference included important

limitations protective of unions. In particular the Terms of Reference

made no assumption to the effect that the role of trade unions should be

18

limited in any material way. The Terms of Reference contemplated

that trade unions play, and will continue to play, an important role in

the Australian industrial relations system.

31. Importantly neither the Terms of Reference, nor any finding in this

Report, affects in any way the ability of persons freely to engage in

collective bargaining; to organise representation through, and be

represented by, unions; freely to associate including association by

creating, promoting and carrying on unions and union activities; and to

participate in democratic union elections.

32. In broad terms the Terms of Reference required the Commission to

investigate two categories of issue: (1) relevant entities (also known as

slush funds); and (2) certain adverse conduct on the part of union

officials.

33. The first category was addressed in paras (a) - (e) of the Terms of

Reference. Paragraph (a) called for inquiry into the governance

arrangements of separate entities established by employee associations

or their officers, which entities were defined as ‘relevant entities’.

Paragraph (b) identified the five unions mentioned above. Paragraph

(c) directed attention to whether persons or organisations were

involved in any of the activities mentioned in (b). Paragraph (d)

directed attention to the circumstances in which funds are, or have

been, procured from any third parties and paid to relevant entities.

Paragraph (e) required examination of the extent to which persons

represented by employee associations are protected from any adverse

effects arising from matters associated with the existence of relevant

entities, are informed of those matters, are able to influence or exercise

19

control over those matters, or have the opportunity to hold officers of

these associations accountable for wrongdoing in relation to those

matters.

34. The second category of issue was addressed at paras (f) - (h) of the

Terms of Reference, which directed attention to the conduct of union

officials. Thus para (f) required the Commission to inquire into:

[A]ny conduct in relation to a relevant entity which may amount to a breach of any law, regulation or professional standard by any officer of an employee association who holds, or held, a position of responsibility in relation to the entity.

35. Paragraph (g) required the Commission to inquire into:

[A]ny conduct which may amount to a breach of any law, regulation or professional standard by any officer of an employee association in order to:

(i) procure and advantage for the officer or another person or organisation; or

(ii) cause a detriment to a person or organisation.

36. Paragraph (h) required the Commission to inquire into:

[A]ny bribe, secret commission or other unlawful payment or benefit arising from contracts, arrangements or understandings between an employee association, or an officer of an employee association and any other party.

37. Some have contended that the Terms of Reference are unbalanced in

that they focus attention on union officials and relevant entities but not

on employers. It is not for this Report to praise or attack the Terms of

Reference. But it is permissible to say that the merits of this criticism,

if any, lie only in the area of form, not substance. From the outset it

was made clear that the inquiry would be directed to both sides of any

20

corrupt transaction. In other words, examination was directed to both

the person who provided the benefit and the person who received it.

The point was made expressly by counsel assisting in their opening

statement on 9 April 2014:

Also, if it were to transpire that the union official has received corruptly a sum of money or benefit, that is not the end of the matter. Corrupt receipt implies corrupt payment. Someone else must have been involved.

38. Consistently with this position, a number of the case studies have

investigated wrongdoing on the part of specific employers and their

executives. Findings have been made that quite a number of them may

have engaged in criminal conduct. They have been referred to the

regulatory authorities for further investigation.5

39. Hence there has been no exclusive focus on wrongdoing by trade union

officials. Where appropriate there has been examination of both sides

of the particular transactions. Where referrals of potential criminal

conduct have been appropriate, they have been made, whether or not

the individuals affected had been acting on the union side or the

employer side.

Selection of Case Studies

40. Often a Royal Commission is established in order to inquire into the

causes and effect of some specific event. In that instance the

specificity of the inquiry inevitably directs or shapes to some extent the

nature and content of the Commission’s investigations.

5

See Appendix 2 of this Volume.

21

41. This was not the case here. The Terms of Reference were not directed

to any specific event or events. The Royal Commission had the task of

unearthing for itself whether any unlawful or inappropriate conduct

had occurred. That had to be done within a culture steeped in ideals of

loyalty in which those who break ranks - and in some cases breaking

ranks seemed to include cooperating with the Commission or even

submitting to its compulsory processes - are reviled and ostracised.

This was not true loyalty. It was only a perversion of it. But perverted

or not, it nonetheless made investigation extraordinarily difficult. And

it led to a prodigious amount of evidence which ranged from being less

than frank to being mulishly stubborn to being blatantly mendacious.

It also led to the suppression or destruction of documentary records, or

extreme tardiness and uncooperativeness in producing them.

42. This posed particular challenges. In the early days heavy reliance had

to be placed on inquiries suggested by whistleblowers and inquiries

into matters the details of which had to a limited extent come to light

already. As time went on the Commission developed its own lines of

inquiry.

43. Indeed in due course it became clear that it was not possible to

investigate every potential issue that had come to the Commission’s

attention by one means or another. Difficult judgments needed to be

made about what matters would be examined further. Some matters

did not progress beyond initial investigations. Some matters were

investigated more thoroughly but did not proceed to public hearing.

Some complaints to the Commission concerned quite old conduct.

Some were at or beyond the margins of the Terms of Reference. Some

were atypical and hence unsuitable for use as case studies illustrating

22

broader problems. The credibility of some complainants seemed too

fragile to justify the expenditure which would have had to have been

laid out and the inconvenience which would have had to have been

endured to take an investigation to its conclusion. Several

investigations were referred to appropriate authorities although no

public hearing took place.

44. It is important to emphasise however that as much ground was covered

and as much work was done as was reasonably possible. There was

only one Commissioner, responsible among many other things for

presiding at every public and private hearing and for writing the

Interim and Final Reports. It would simply not have been possible to

have undertaken any further investigations than in fact occurred. And

even if there had been more than one Commissioner, the counsel and

solicitors assisting and other members of the Commission staff could

not have worked harder than they did. Nor could output have been

improved by massively increasing the Commission’s personnel. A

multiplication of bodies can lead to a loss of focus and concentration.

It does not necessarily generate greater efficiency.

The Interim Report

45. Paragraph (n) of the Terms of Reference authorises the submission of

an interim report that the Commissioner considers appropriate.

46. On 15 December 2014 the Commissioner submitted an Interim Report

in three volumes (one confidential).

23

47. The Interim Report dealt with the majority, but not all, of the case

studies which had been heard or part heard during 2014. Further detail

concerning the Interim Report, including the details of the case studies

heard or part heard in 2014 but not dealt with in the Interim Report, is

contained in section C below.

The Police Taskforce

48. In the beginning of 2015 a police Taskforce was established to assist

the Commission in its work. The Taskforce was independent of the

Royal Commission. It was autonomous. It made its own operational

decisions. Among other things the Taskforce took a number of

referrals from the Commission and thereafter investigated those

matters on its own account; assisted the Commission in some of the

Commission’s investigations; and conducted investigations entirely

separately from the Royal Commission. The investigations undertaken

by the Taskforce and its regional divisions (Victoria, New South Wales

and Queensland) were related to the Terms of Reference. The

Taskforce was overseen by Commander Mark Ney of the Australian

Federal Police (AFP). The Taskforce comprised in excess of 40 police

officers drawn from the AFP and the police forces of New South

Wales, Victoria and Queensland.

49. On 5 January 2015 the Taskforce commenced operations. While the

precise numbers of officers from the AFP and the State police forces

varied from time to time, in substance the AFP provided approximately

30 full time employees comprising 11 officers in Sydney, 4 officers in

Brisbane, 8 officers in Melbourne and 7 officers to provide

24

telecommunications interception services to them across three states.

In addition the AFP provided 3 ongoing staff to give support to the

Taskforce in various ways.

50. The New South Wales police force committed nine full-time

employees comprising of one inspector, two sergeants and six

constables. The Queensland police committed four full-time

employees comprising one superintendent and three constables.

Victoria police committed 11 full-time employees comprising one

inspector, three sergeants and seven constables.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION: OVERVIEW OF 2015 B -

51. In 2015 the Commission uncovered and examined a wide range of

corrupt or inappropriate conduct on the part of some union officials

across a range of unions, not just the five identified by name in the

Terms of Reference.

52. In very brief terms the conduct uncovered by the Commission in 2015

has included:

(a) a former lead organiser for the CFMEU ACT conceded

during hearings in Canberra that he had personally received

$100,000 in secret payments from employers;

(b) a former president of the CFMEU QLD received

approximately $150,000 worth of free work on his home,

arranged or facilitated by a senior employee of a major

building company with the knowledge of his superior;

25

(c) serious misappropriations of members’ funds were revealed

in the NSW branch of the National Union of Workers, those

responsible being at least the Secretary, his brother, who was

an organiser and their niece, who was a junior employee;

(d) the AWU and a large cleaning company agreed to extend a

WorkChoices enterprise agreement, thereby saving the

company some $2,000,000 per year it would otherwise have

had to pay its casual workers in penalty rates under the

relevant Award. In exchange, the cleaning company paid the

AWU $25,000 per year and provided lists of 100 bogus

‘members’ - the great majority of whom were unaware that

they had been included in these lists;

(e) the CFMEU in Queensland caused a number of tonnes of

documents to be removed from the CFMEU’s Brisbane office

and disposed of on the same day that the CFMEU received a

notice to produce from the Royal Commission;

(f) the AWU and the joint venture responsible for the EastLink

Tunnel project in Melbourne, Thiess John Holland, entered

into an agreement pursuant to which the joint venture paid

$110,000 inclusive of GST per year to the AWU for the three

year life of the project, disguised by a series of false invoices;

(g) an organiser in the CFMEU NSW received $2,500 per week

in secret and possibly unlawful cash payments;

26

(h) a company operating a mushroom farm in Victoria agreed to

pay the AWU $4,000 a month for a number of months in

exchange for industrial peace;

(i) a construction company in Victoria paid membership dues for

its employees to the AWU, disguised for a number of years

by false invoices;

(j) both the incoming Secretary and the outgoing Secretary of the

WA branch of the TWU arranged the purchase of two luxury

four wheel drive vehicles by the Union for their own benefit.

The outgoing Secretary also received a generous redundancy

payment, without the approval of the BCOM; and

(k) union officials commenced and maintained two proceedings

in the Federal Court of Australia against their political rivals

in what may have been an abuse of process.

Some common themes

53. Before descending into the details of the case studies it may be helpful

to step back and consider some of the common themes which have

emerged both in 2015 and the year before.

54. The first such common theme is the propensity for the creation of false

records. This has occurred across numerous case studies. To take some

examples, as noted above in the Thiess John Holland case study, an

arrangement was entered into between the AWU and a Thiess John

Holland joint venture pursuant to which $110,000 a year for the three

27

year term of the East Link project was paid by Thiess John Holland to

the AWU in many cases disguised by false invoices. In the Unibuilt

case study, an employee was falsely described as a research officer for

a labour hire company when in fact he was working as an electoral

officer for a candidate for a Parliamentary seat. In the Winslow case

study a series of false invoices were sent over a number of years

claiming payment for training when in truth money was being sought

for the payment of membership fees.

55. Indeed, the creation of false invoices or other documents was not

confined to the case studies heard in 2015. The Australian Workers’

Union - Workplace Reform Association case study was in large part a

story of false invoices issued by the Association and paid for by

Thiess. Similarly the case study involving Katherine Jackson and the

Peter Mac Institute was also one relating to the creation of false

invoices.

56. Another, closely related, common theme relates to an insufficiency or

absence of proper corporate records. A number of case studies saw

instances in which important records had either not been completed

(such as minutes of meetings) or could no longer be found. The ETU

(NSW) case study is a good example of a vexing debate about whether

or not particular matters had been recorded or should have been

recorded.

57. In some instances there were findings that documents had been hidden

or destroyed. As noted above, in this Report findings are made to the

effect that the CFMEU in Queensland caused a number of tonnes of

28

documents to be removed from the CFMEU’s Brisbane office and

disposed of.

58. In modern organisations like trade unions and businesses it is utterly

inappropriate and improper to maintain incomplete or false records. It

is critically important to have a clear and accurate set of union records

so that auditors, subsequent officials and, most importantly, the

members have a transparent, permanent and accurate record of the

union’s day to day activities. And if the conduct of trade union

officials leads to or is connected with the generation of false invoices

by a business, there is a risk that later executives working in the

business, its auditors, and potential buyers of the business will be

seriously misled. With the best will in the world it is almost

impossible months or years after the event for participants at a meeting

to recall with any accuracy whether a particular decision was made or

resolution passed, and if so its terms. And corporate memory can fade

even faster than human memory, as employees move to different parts

of organisations or leave them. The point was made succinctly in

Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital where Hope JA observed:6

Any significant organization in our society must depend for its efficient carrying on upon proper records made by persons who have no interest other than to record as accurately as possible matters relating to the business with which they are concerned. In the every-day carrying on of the activities of the business, people would look to, and depend upon, those records, and use them on the basis that they are most probably accurate.

59. A second particular theme is that branch committees of management

have often failed to take a sufficiently strong position when dealing

with certain union officials. There is no doubt that some union

6

[1980] 2 NSWLR 542 at 548-9.

29

officials are powerful, dominating and charismatic personalities. But

the committee of management has a duty, and must develop the

capacity, to stand up to such officials. Clearly, this is not always easy.

Members of the committee of management are not paid for their time.

They may be engaged in full time work elsewhere. They may be

retired. In some cases they may not have the energy or determination

or time to become fully engaged in every issue.

60. However it is critical that the committee of management not act merely

as a rubber stamp. On a number of occasions in different case studies

committees of management seem to have been under the thumbs of

powerful and well established union officials in such a way that the

committee of management simply became a cipher, listlessly and

mechanically approving resolutions put before it. A good example is

the TWU (WA Branch) case study. Another good example is

Katherine Jackson in the HSU who seemed to be able to operate almost

as she saw fit in terms of deploying branch funds for the purposes of

personal travel or other expenditure despite some knowledge by the

committee of management. In that respect there was a contrast with

her colleagues, Michael Williamson and Craig Thomson, who operated

much more furtively and secretively.

61. It is difficult to overstate the importance of a strong, efficient and

focussed committee of management for the proper governance of a

union. The committee of management is the body which on a monthly

basis needs to be questioning, checking and, if necessary, challenging

accounting records and resolutions promulgated by the officials at the

unions. The committee of management is perhaps the most important

safeguard for ensuring that members’ money is deployed properly. A

30

position on a committee of management is not a position to be taken

lightly. Its members must learn to use two words more. One is

‘Why?’ the other is ‘No’.

62. A third theme revealed by some of the case studies, particularly those

involving the AWU, involves the payment of large sums by employers

to the union. In some cases the arrangements pursuant to which these

payments were made were undocumented and their purposes were

described in oral evidence only in vague terms. In the case of

Cleanevent, on the other hand, the arrangement was documented and

its purpose clear. In all cases, the arrangements were made in the

context of bargaining for enterprise agreements. In all cases, they were

undisclosed to the members on whose behalf that bargaining was

taking place.

63. Arrangements of this kind are highly unsatisfactory. They inhibit the

ability of the union and its officials to pursue the interests of its

members. The union and the officials become the servants of two

groups of masters. They tend to end up, if not loving one and hating

the other, at least showing favour to one, the employer, and failing

energetically to advance of the position of the other, the members. It is

of the nature of arrangements of this kind that their precise effect on

negotiations is difficult to pinpoint. Often these arrangements are

undocumented precisely because a concern for damage to reputation

makes those involved uncomfortable about the arrangement being

discovered.

64. That discomfort was apparent in the Cleanevent case study.

Nonetheless, the arrangement was documented. That documentation

31

gives a very clear indication of how highly disadvantageous these

arrangements can be for members. In exchange for payments of

$25,000 per year, the Victorian Branch of the AWU in substance

agreed for three years not to seek better terms and conditions for those

of its members employed by Cleanevent. It would not have been

difficult to obtain better terms and conditions. But the Victorian

Branch of the AWU preferred to take the fairly paltry sum of money

for itself. For workers employed by Cleanevent the outcome was

appalling. The members of the Cleanevent management team involved

in the deal described it as saving the company amounts ranging from

$1 million to $2 million. All involved benefited from the deal except

the people the union was supposed to be representing.

65. Recommendations as to how arrangements of this kind can be avoided

in the future are contained in Volume 5 of this Report.

66. A fourth common theme relates to false inflation of membership

numbers. Sometimes the false inflation is for purposes other than

financial. An example arose where the TWU lied to the ALP NSW

about the number of financial members it had in order to increase its

voting power at Annual Conference. More commonly the goal is to

treat individuals as members paid for by employers, whether or not the

members want to be members, and whether they or not they are

members already. Unions, like all other complex institutions of any

size, need the sinews of existence - money to pay staff. The primary

and perhaps the only legitimate source of money as membership fees,

though there is little public awareness of how much money some

unions make from other sources. The issue of membership numbers is

also is a feature of the Cleanevent case study, together with the

32

Winslow and Miscellaneous Membership case studies. The common

feature here is a focus on membership numbers rather than whether

particular individuals truly wish, and are truly entitled, to become

members. These case studies throw up examples of persons added to

the membership register in circumstances where they could not have

known about it and, in some examples, where they were already

members of other branches. In one case the purported ‘member’ had

previously refused to join the union.

67. A similar focus on membership numbers was apparent in the CFMEU

ACT case study. In contrast to that case study there was no suggestion

in any of the AWU case studies of coercion or undue pressure placed

on employers to ensure their employees became union members.

68. When several of these themes are taken together, a sinister picture

appears to form. It is a picture of the union concerned not with its role

as the instrument through which to protect the interest of its members

but with self-interest. Its primary interest is in the leading group of its

officials as a self-perpetuating institution. The institution comes to

operate like a Venetian oligarchy or a Whig Parliament with very few

electoral contests. It is an institution more concerned with gathering

members than servicing them.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION: OVERVIEW OF 2014 C -

69. As noted above, on 15 December 2014 the Interim Report was

delivered.

33

70. The designation ‘Interim’ is to some extent a misnomer. In this

context it denotes only that this Report was delivered pursuant to para

(n) of the Terms of Reference (rather than this final Report, which is

delivered at the end of the Commission’s term and the delivery of

which signals the end of the Commission’s operations). The Report

delivered on 15 December 2014 was not ‘Interim’ in the sense that its

findings or recommendations were tentative, provisional or subject to

change.

71. On the contrary, every finding contained in the Interim Report was

final, unless specifically stated otherwise, or unless sufficient contrary

evidence came to light. The Interim Report included a number of

recommendations for referral. These recommendations were also final.

The Commission made every such referral in January 2015. Nothing

further remains to be done in respect of those findings and

recommendations.

72. This Section will examine two topics. The first is an overview of the

matters investigated during 2014. The second is an identification of

those matters heard or part heard in 2014 but not addressed in the

Interim Report.

Overview of the matters investigated in 2014

73. As noted above, the Commission’s Terms of Reference required it to

investigate two broad categories of issue: (1) relevant entities (also

known as slush funds), and (2) any unlawful or unprofessional conduct

on the part of union officials.

34

Slush funds

74. During 2014 the Commission investigated a wide range of different

union-associated funds including generic, fighting, income protection,

redundancy, superannuation and training funds.

75. Generic funds are funds established by union officials for a variety of

purposes. The Commission investigated five generic funds in detail

during 2014: the Australian Workers’ Union - Workplace Reform

Association Inc, Industry 2020 Pty Ltd, Building Industry 2000 Plus

Limited, IR21 Limited and the Transport, Logistics, Advocacy and

Training Association.7

76. Often funds such as these are established, and maintained, quite

separately from the union. Because of this separation the activities and

accounts of the funds may not be included in the union’s accounts and

are not examined by the union’s auditors. Also, there may not be any

or adequate disclosure of the funds’ activities to union members.

77. The fact that union resources are used for the benefit of such funds can

mean that the officials controlling such funds are doing so while in a

position of conflict between interest and duty or duty and duty. The

officials are acting for the benefit of the fund, not for the benefit of the

union or its members.

78. To make matters worse, the assets of the funds can be deployed by

their controllers for their own personal benefit or advancement.

7

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, Pt 3.

35

79. Particular issues identified in the Interim Report as arising from these

generic funds included:

(a) fundraising may be undertaken using union resources, without

payment or recompense to the union;8

(b) fundraising may be effected using unlawful and

unconventional means;9

(c) the assets of the funds may be deployed to advance the

interests - including the political aspirations - of those who

control them;10 and

(d) frequently there is no or no adequate record keeping and

proper processes are not followed.11 For example, directors

or shareholders’ meetings are not held or not minuted, and

transactions are effected by cash.

80. Another category of slush fund is fighting or election funds. Fighting

funds are established by union officials for the purpose of paying

8

See eg Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, pp 331 [4], 344 [36], 373 [107], (re Industry 2020); 445 [40] (re IR21). 9 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, p 74 [3]. 10

See eg the discussion of Industry 2020 in the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, pp 331 [4]; 363 [73], 366 [88]; 382 [137]. 11

See eg Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, pp 74 [4], 387 [4], 394 -396 (re Building Industry 2000 Plus Ltd); 496-499 (re Transport, Logistics, Advocacy and Training Association).

36

expenses associated with union campaigns. Seven fighting funds were

investigated by the Commission in detail during 2014.12

81. Many fighting funds give rise to similar governance issues as those

associated with generic funds, as set out above.13

82. In addition, particular issues associated with fighting funds include:

(a) members contributions are not truly voluntary;14

(b) the funds give an unfair advantage to incumbents;15

(c) in numerous instances candidates benefitting from such funds

closed their eyes to the sources, propriety and legality of such

benefits and disclaimed responsibility for the funding of their

own campaigns on the basis of ignorance;16

12 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, Part 4. 13

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, pp 516- 517; and see 654 (Team Fund); 757 [38] (SDA Qld Fighting Fund). 14

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, pp 635 [13]-637 [17] (Team Fund). 15

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, p 517. 16

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, pp 583-584 [166], 695 [53], 700-701 [69] (Our HSU); 598 [213] (FAAA elections); 739-742 (Diana Asmar).

37

(d) in some cases persons controlling a fund sought to regularise

and correct its records years after the event and only after

scrutiny from the Commission;17

(e) controllers of the funds can decline to return members’

contributions, even when those contributions have not been

spent;18 and

(f) controllers establish funds using inappropriate structures.19

83. Issues arising in respect of other relevant entities included:

(a) union members having a lack of choice in relation to

superannuation funds;20

(b) unfair and preferential treatment of union members;21 and

(c) poor governance on the part of the management of the

entities.22

17 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, p 653 [67] (Team Fund). 18

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, pp 757-760 (SDA Fighting Fund). 19

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, p 673 [44] (Officers’ Election Fund). 20

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, p 939 [83]. 21

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, pp 823-829. 22

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, pp 845-847.

38

Unlawful or unprofessional conduct

84. Turning to the second category of issues raised by the Terms of

Reference, they require investigation of unlawful or unprofessional

conduct on the part of union officials.

85. Some of the issues relating to this topic canvassed in the public

hearings during 2014 include that union officials may have:

(a) deliberately disregarded and flouted the law;23

(b) used blackmail24 and extortion25 for the purposes of achieving

industrial ends;

(c) committed other criminal offences, such as the making of

death threats,26 the issuing of false invoices and conspiracy to

defraud;27

(d) engaged in contraventions of the boycott and cartel provisions

of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth);28

23 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 2, pp 1008, 1105. 24

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 2, pp 1017, 1100-1105. 25

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 2, pp 1466-1475. 26

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 2, ch 8.4, see in particular pp 1304-1305. 27

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, pp 237-251.

39

(e) taken action to convince senior employees of the trustee of a

superannuation fund, Cbus, secretly to hand over private

information of Cbus members before subsequently misusing

that information to injure employers with whom the union

officials saw themselves as being at war;29

(f) organised and engaged in industrial action in deliberate

defiance of orders made by the Fair Work Commission and

the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; and

(g) procured the payment of monies by companies for the

purposes of obtaining industrial peace.30

86. Because inquiries were incomplete and continuing, the Interim Report

did not express final conclusions or make recommendations as to law

reform. However possible problems with the existing law and possible

areas of law reform were foreshadowed where appropriate.

Conclusions and recommendations as to law reform are now contained

in Volume 5 of this Report, and referred to below in Section L.

28 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 2, pp 1078-1100. 29

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 2, ch 8.3. 30

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, pp 974, 988.

40

Case studies commenced in 2014 but not addressed or concluded in the Interim Report

87. The following comments set out in more detail the case studies or

groups of case studies which were heard or part heard in 2014 but were

not the subject of analysis in the Interim Report.

88. One group of case studies not dealt with in the Interim Report

concerned issues connected with Katherine Jackson’s role in the HSU.

In addition to Katherine Jackson, the Interim Report did not canvass

issues affecting Craig Thomson, Peter Mylan and Michael Williamson.

89. The 2014 submissions of the lawyers for the HSU and for Katherine

Jackson, as well as those of counsel assisting, were all to the effect that

certain allegations against Katherine Jackson ought not to be dealt with

in the Interim Report. Among other things, they said that the

allegations raised in the Commission overlapped with the allegations

raised in Federal Court Proceedings, namely Health Services Union v

Jackson, VID 1042/2013.31 The Interim Report accepted those

submissions.32

90. Peter Mylan made a similar, and successful, submission to the effect

that no findings should be made against him in the Interim Report in

view of the existence of several proceedings between him and the

31

See the Submissions of the HSU, 14/11/14, paras 6(a), 6(b); Submissions of Katherine Jackson, 14/11/14, para 103; Submissions of Counsel Assisting, 31/10/14, ch 1.1, para 81; ch 12.3, para 75; ch 12.4, paras 8, 58, 67. 32

See Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, ch 1, pp 3-4 para 7 and Vol 2, ch 8.2, p 1067, para 152.

41

union.33 As is set out further in Chapter 5.2 of Volume 2 of this

Report, the civil proceedings between Peter Mylan and the HSU were

settled during 2015. Criminal proceedings were on foot against Craig

Thomson. In large measure most of the issues in relation to the HSU

were interconnected.

91. The trials in all legal proceedings concerning Katherine Jackson, Peter

Mylan, Michael Williamson, Craig Thomson and the HSU No 1

Branch have now concluded. Hence the issues concerning those

persons are dealt with in Volume 2 of this Report.

92. The Interim Report did not deal with the evidence of Andrew Zaf

about the conduct of officers of the Victorian Branch of the CFMEU.

The reason for this was that shortly before the Interim Report was

completed, material came to the Commission’s attention which

required investigation before a finding could be made.34 This case

study is now considered in Volume 4 of this Report.

93. The Interim Report did not deal with certain conduct alleged against

Michael Ravbar, David Hanna, Jade Ingham and Chad Bragdon, who

were officials of the Queensland Branch of the CFMEU. The conduct

allegedly took place on the Brooklyn on Brooks Project in Fortitude

Valley in Brisbane. The reason for this was that the CFMEU objected

because legal proceedings were on foot against the last two officials.

The factual controversies in the proceedings have now come to an end.

This matter is now dealt with in Volume 4, Chapter 8.3 of this Report.

33 28/11/14, T:60.34-38. 34 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 2, ch 8.11.

42

94. The Interim Report dealt at some length with the issue known as the

Cbus leak to the CFMEU. A summary of this issue is set out in

Section J below. At the time the Interim Report was being upheld, two

of the responsible executives were in the process of volunteering to the

Commission that their earlier evidence was perjured and were giving

new evidence about the roles of Brian Parker and other Cbus

personnel. The Interim Report did not reach any conclusion about the

role of David Atkin, the Chief Executive Officer of Cbus to whom

Maria Butera directly reported. This matter was further investigated in

2015 and is dealt with in Chapter Volume 3, Chapter 7.1 of this

Report.

95. Another case study which was not concluded in 2014 concerned

dealings between certain CFMEU officials, George Alex, and

executives working for companies apparently associated with George

Alex. George Alex appeared to have been the principal behind labour

hire companies which supply casual labour to building contractors.

These companies have features consistent with their operation as so-called ‘phoenix’ companies. The features of ‘phoenix’ companies

include the following. One by one they go into liquidation. Each

liquidation appears to leave workers with unpaid entitlements, and

liabilities to third parties such as the Australian Taxation Office

unpaid. The liquidated companies are then succeeded by a new

company with a similar name destined for the same fate as its

predecessors. This case study was concluded in 2015 and is dealt with

in Volume 3, Chapter 7.2 of this Report.

96. This Report also deals with some other unfinished matters from 2014,

including:

43

(a) issues relating to the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA).

This is now dealt with in Volume 2, Chapter 1 of this Report;

(b) the Chiquita Mushrooms case study involving the AWU. This

is now dealt with in Volume 4, Chapter 10.6 of this Report;

(c) the HSU Victoria No 1 Branch case study under the

secretaryship of Diana Asmar. This is now dealt with in

Volume 2, Chapter 5.2 of this Report.

THE FACT FINDING PROCESS D -

97. Pursuant to the Letters Patent the Commissioner was required and

authorised to ‘inquire into’ the matters set out in the Terms of

Reference. An inquiry of this kind is primarily a factual investigation.

The nature of the investigation carried out by this Commission should

be spelled out in more detail.

98. A Royal Commission is an administrative inquiry, initiated and

authorised by Letters Patent. A Royal Commission is not a judicial

inquiry.35 The conclusions reached by a Royal Commission are

expressions of opinion. They do not have legal force. They do not

determine the legal rights of any affected party.

99. The Commission was assisted in this factual inquiry by counsel

assisting and others. Counsel assisting are participants in the

administrative inquiry being undertaken by the Commissioner.

35

Lockwood v Commonwealth (1954) 90 CLR 177 at 181 per Fullagar J; see also McGuinness v Attorney-General (Vic) (1940) 63 CLR 73 at 84 per Latham CJ.

44

Counsel assisting are not advancing a case, though they may be

proceeding in the light of particular hypotheses, which may change as

time goes on and the evidentiary store becomes fuller. They are not

adducing evidence in order to discharge an onus of proof (as to which

see Section E below). Rather, counsel and for that matter solicitors

assisting the Commissioner, are performing their duties. Their duty is

to help the inquiry required and authorised by the Letters Patent to be

carried out by the provision of legal advice and assistance. One aspect

of legal assistance is to devise a blueprint or framework which assists

in organising the multiplicity of facts being examined.

The difference between a Royal Commission and a criminal court

100. The features of the Royal Commission just described have important

implications for the fact finding process undertaken by this Royal

Commission. In particular, a Royal Commission cannot - indeed,

should not - seek to replicate the kind of process that is undertaken by

a criminal court when determining whether a charge has been proved.

101. The very point of a Royal Commission is that it can proceed quickly

and flexibly in inquiring into as many of the facts described in the

Terms of Reference as it is reasonably able within its allotted term. A

Royal Commission’s origins, processes and outcomes are all very

different from those of a criminal court. This point is underscored by

the fact that counsel assisting a Royal Commission are not under the

same obligations stated in the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct

(Barristers) Rules 2015 as a prosecutor in a criminal case.

45

102. The point is also made by the number of hearings days during this

Commission’s twenty one month term. As noted above, the

Commission sat on 189 hearing days. This roughly equates to trial of

in excess of nine months. It is inconceivable, at least in the 21st

century, that a criminal inquiry could be initiated, proceed to a nine

month trial and arrive at a final decision, all within twenty one months.

103. Public comments have been made that a police investigation of alleged

wrongdoings suffices in all cases and that a Royal Commission is

simply unnecessary. But the fact is that a Royal Commission can

uncover behaviour, such as improper credit card usage within the

National Union of Workers, in circumstances where it was unlikely

that a police investigation would ever have occurred.

104. The Terms of Reference are broad. They initiated a wide-ranging

inquiry, surveying to the greatest extent reasonably possible a very

extensive range of issues. Undue concentration on a limited number of

incidents would not have been an adequate response to the Terms of

Reference.

105. Every effort was made to obtain as much evidence and to explore the

facts as comprehensibly as possible. But there were nevertheless limits

on the extent to which any particular issue could be investigated. As

observed by Thomas J in Carruthers v Connolly,36 there has to be a

point beyond which inquiries may decline to go. A favourite

submission of some counsel was to complain that counsel assisting had

failed to call some minor player or other as a witness. The complaint

36 Carruthers v Connolly [1998] 1 Qd R 339 at 369.

46

was almost always made for the first time in final submissions, instead

of during the hearings, when it might have been possible to serve a

summons on the witness, if there had been any point in it. But

judgments about materiality and significance do have to be made. ‘If

we lived for a thousand years instead of about sixty or seventy, and

every case were of sufficient importance, it might be possible, and

perhaps proper … to raise every possible inquiry as to the truth of

statements made … [I]n fact, mankind find it to be impossible.’37

The case study technique

106. A Royal Commissioner has a broad discretion in deciding how to go

about the task of fact finding. The selection of method will be

influenced by the terms of reference, by the subject matter, by the

length of the inquiry, by the resources available to it, and other factors.

107. A Royal Commission investigating a single issue - such as the cause of

an accident or natural disaster - might take a different approach to fact

finding from a Commission such as this one, which was required to

undertake a very broad-ranging inquiry. In particular such an event-based Commission might be able to investigate the facts relating to the

particular issue in greater detail than a broad ranging inquiry is able to

do.

108. The technique adopted by this Royal Commission to the fact finding

process involved consideration of a wide range of case studies. A case

study was selected for investigation at public hearing on the basis that

37 Attorney-General v Hitchcock (1847) 1 Ex Ch 91 at 105; 154 ER 38 at 44 per Rolfe B.

47

it revealed issues or conduct falling within the Terms of Reference.

Other factors could come into play; for example, to the extent possible

systemic rather than idiosyncratic issues were given preference.

109. As many case studies as possible have been investigated. There was a

clear public interest in proceeding in this way. Because inquiry was

made into as many facts as reasonably possible consistently with

meeting the requirements of natural justice, the final recommendations

have as sure and as broad a footing as possible.

110. The case study approach is labour intensive. As much evidence as was

reasonably possible was collected by the Commission for each case

study. The evidence was both oral and documentary. The latter was

often elicited through notices to produce. The preparation,

presentation and testing of this evidence placed enormous burdens on

counsel assisting, the solicitors and Commission staff.

111. The procedures for the preparation of evidence varied according to

factors such as the progress of the investigation, the extent to which

notices to produce had been complied with, the availability of the

relevant witnesses, and the resources or time available to the

Commission in the light of other work or investigations that were

underway. There were no rigid rules. Procedures had to be adapted to

meet the contingencies of the case. The following brief comments

describe in very general terms some of the procedures employed for

evidence gathering.

112. In many (but not all) instances Commission staff wrote to a witness in

advance of the public hearing setting out a list of topics likely to be the

48

subject of the hearing and inviting the witness to provide a statement of

his or her evidence in respect of those topics. In some cases,

particularly if the witness had left, or had no association with, or was

the object of hostility from, the relevant union, documents were

supplied or made available to the witness to assist with the preparation

of the statement; in other cases, for example if the witness was

currently a union official and had access to the relevant records of the

union, this was less of an issue.

113. In the majority of cases witnesses complied with the request to provide

a witness statement in advance of the hearing. The many witnesses

who took the time to provide such statements and thereby help the

work of the inquiry are warmly thanked. In some instances

Commission staff assisted the witnesses with the preparation of

statements, particularly if the witness was unrepresented. The use of

witness statements greatly improved the efficiency of the public

hearings. It meant that evidence could be received by the Commission

in whole or in part through the statement, rather than having to take the

witness through every detail in oral evidence. It also put affected

parties on notice of the likely issues and evidence to be given.

114. In some instances a witness would simply be called and asked to give

oral evidence on particular topics. This might happen if issues were

still evolving. It might happen if the witness had declined for whatever

reason to provide a witness statement. It might happen if there was

insufficient time. In nearly every case documents were provided or

made available to the witness in advance, through the Electronic Court

Book or otherwise, although in some instances even this was not

possible or appropriate.

49

115. As goes without saying, affected persons were also free to gather and

present evidence. They were able to decide what to put in their

statements. To the extent documents were available to them they were

able to seek to have those documents tendered, or to request that

documents in the possession of the Commission be tendered, or to

request that notices to produce be issued in order to enable them to be

tendered. Following the witness’s examination by counsel assisting

the witness could be cross-examined by counsel for affected persons

who were adverse to the witness, provided certain conditions precedent

were satisfied. As is always the case, one of the objects of cross

examination was to elicit further evidence or to undermine evidence

already given by the witness. After a witness had been called and

examined by counsel assisting any affected person who sought to do so

had an opportunity to cross examine that witness. Few limits were

placed on cross examination, save in some instances of undue

repetitiveness. After that the witness could be examined by his or her

own counsel, at which time liberal opportunity was afforded to the

witness to amplify or correct matters in respect of which evidence had

been given, or for that matter to raise new matters.

116. While strictly speaking it was the sole responsibility of counsel

assisting to tender any documents or call witnesses, in practical terms

counsel assisting rarely if ever declined a request for particular

documents to be tendered or particular witnesses to be called, and the

evidence was mostly adduced as a matter of course.

117. The case study technique has another great ancillary benefit, additional

to those identified above. It ensures that the Commission’s reasoning

process is exposed for review and consideration. Evidence was

50

adduced in a public forum and live-streamed via the Internet. To the

extent that that evidence was documentary, it was published on the

Commission’s website. Any affected person - and for that matter any

interested third party however little connection that person might have

with the proceedings - could view that evidence at the time it was

given or review it later and make a personal firsthand assessment of the

reasoning process pursuant to which findings were made on the basis

of that evidence.

FINDINGS E -

118. It will be helpful to make some further comments concerning the

nature of findings in this Commission.

The rules of evidence

119. It is well established that a Royal Commission is not bound by the

rules of evidence, apart from rules which are more than mere rules of

evidence, like legal professional privilege. Nevertheless the rules of

evidence represent, as observed by Evatt J in R v The War Pensions

Entitlement Appeal Tribunal; Ex Parte Bott,38 ‘the attempt made,

through many generations, to evolve a method of inquiry best

calculated to prevent error and elicit truth’.

120. In practice, participants in hearings often proceeded as if the rules of

evidence did apply. Frequently counsel for affected persons took

evidentiary objections during the hearings to the tender of material or

38 (1933) 50 CLR 228 at 256.

51

to the form or conduct of the hearings or to the asking of particular

questions, such as leading or confusing or double questions. Often

those objections were upheld.

121. On the other hand, there is no question that much evidence was

received that would not have been admissible in a tribunal governed by

the strict rules of evidence. In that event submissions were often

received on the question of the weight to be given to such evidence.

122. In short, while the rules of evidence were always a useful and practical

guide for many questions arising in the Commission, ultimately the

Commission was required to, and did, proceed in a way which met the

other demands upon it, including the necessity of delivering its Report

on time in accordance with the Letters Patent, provided that the

requirements of due process were also met.

Standard of proof

123. As was noted in the Interim Report, the concept of onus of proof does

not apply in a Royal Commission. From this it follows that, strictly

speaking, neither the civil standard nor the criminal standard of proof

applies either.39

124. Nevertheless a Commission must decide whether it is satisfied that the

evidence is sufficient to establish a particular finding. As was stated in

the Interim Report, on this question this Commission has adopted the

39 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, ch 1, p 5 [15].

52

same approach as has been adopted in previous Royal Commissions,

namely to apply the civil standard in accordance with the principles

described for courts in Briginshaw v Briginshaw.40

125. These principles relevantly require that a tribunal may conclude on the

civil standard of proof that criminal or inappropriate conduct has been

established if the allegation is made out to the reasonable satisfaction

of the tribunal, taking into account the seriousness of the allegation, the

inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the

gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding.

126. The operation of the principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw in part

reflect a conventional perception that members of society do not

ordinarily engage in fraudulent or criminal conduct and a judicial

approach that a court should not lightly make a finding that, on the

balance of probabilities, a party to civil litigation has been guilty of

such conduct.41

127. Any adverse finding in both this Report and the Interim Report has

been made consistently with the above principles.

128. In other words, whether or not expressly stated, every finding in this

Report and the Interim Report: (a) is based on evidence received by

the Commission and those matters which are so notorious as not to

require proof or which are part of the ordinary experience of daily life;

and (b) has been made only after due and careful regard as to whether

the evidence adduced in the Commission has sufficiently established

40 (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361-362. 41 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170 at 171.

53

that finding, taking into account matters such as the seriousness of the

finding, the inherent likelihood or unlikelihood of the fact the subject

of the finding, the gravity of the consequences, and the perception that

members of our society do not ordinarily engage in fraudulent or

criminal conduct.

Findings based on evidence and submissions

129. In some ways the non-application of the rules of evidence caused a

great deal of material that might not have been admitted in a court

ultimately to be allowed in. This meant that the volume of materials

admitted into evidence was very considerable. Similarly written

submissions made by affected parties and for that matter counsel

assisting were also voluminous. Affected persons frequently put on

more than one set of submissions.

130. It is important to emphasise that all of the evidence received and all of

the submissions made were read and considered carefully prior to

making any relevant finding. Because of the constraints of time upon

the Commission not every point arising in this evidence or made in

submissions is expressly dealt with in this Report. Given the sheer

volume of the evidence and submissions, responding to each and every

point raised in submissions or evidence would have required a Report

of considerably greater length than this one without any corresponding

benefit. The important point to emphasise is that the fact that a point

made in evidence or submissions has not been discussed in detail, or at

all, does not mean that it was overlooked. On the contrary, every piece

54

of evidence and submission was read and considered, whether or not

express reference is made to it in the reasoning in the Report.

Finding that a contravention or breach of duty ‘may’ have occurred

131. When the Report discusses breaches of laws or professional standards,

its findings are limited to conclusions that a person has engaged in

conduct that may have been a breach of a relevant law, regulation or

professional standard.42

132. In this context the word ‘may’ is being used in a particular sense. It is

not intended to suggest merely there was some vague possibility of

breach. The word ‘may’ is used to convey the view that there is

credible evidence before the Commission raising a probable

presumption that a breach of law, regulation or professional standard

has occurred.43

133. The background to and reasons for the approach taken above are set

out in more detail in the Interim Report.44

42 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, ch 1, p 19 [60]. 43

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, ch 1, p 19 [62]. 44

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, ch 1, p 19-21, [63]-[67].

55

Findings of criminal conduct

134. Some previous Royal Commissions have kept findings of actual or

possible criminal conduct confidential, for example by publishing such

findings only in a private or confidential report. There are obvious

reasons for taking this approach. An adverse finding that there may

have been criminal conduct is likely to cause reputational damage and

personal distress. And the limited nature of a finding of a Royal

Commission has already been adverted to above.

135. However, after carefully considering this option, this Commission

elected not to proceed in this way. All the Commission’s findings and

referrals were released publicly, both in the Interim Report and this

Report. The Commissioner’s confidential reports do not contain

specific findings of that character.

136. The reasons for this included the following. As a general principle the

proceedings of the Commission should be open and transparent. There

was a public interest in exposing all of the Commission’s findings to

scrutiny and comment. As its very name suggests, the Commission

was expressly charged with investigating corrupt or unlawful conduct.

The Terms of Reference specifically required the Commission to make

findings in relation to whether certain persons may have engaged in

criminal conduct. For example, as noted above sub-para (h) of the

Terms of Reference required the Commission to inquire into:

[A]ny bribe, secret commission or other unlawful payment or benefit arising from contracts, arrangements or understandings between an employee association, or an officer of an employee association, and any other party.

56

137. The public has an interest in knowing what conclusions this

Commission has reached. The case study technique enables the

scrutiny of the reasoning process from evidence to ultimate finding.

This would have been undermined if the results had been kept secret.

138. Further, while the Commission was deeply conscious of the fact that a

finding as to possible criminal or inappropriate conduct could

adversely affect a person’s reputation, the fact is that a reasonable

onlooker would appreciate the many important differences between

finding of a Royal Commission and, for example, a determination of

guilt in a criminal court.

139. Many of these have previously been identified above, but at the risk of

repetition, they can be summarised. A Royal Commission is an

administrative inquiry. A finding of a Royal Commissioner is an

expression of opinion, not a determination of legal rights. A Royal

Commission does not and cannot engage in an inquiry of the kind

carried out by a criminal court. Hence a finding of this Royal

Commission on breach does not rise above an opinion that the person

‘may’ have engaged in criminal conduct.

140. The point which can be drawn from the above observations is that a

finding of a Royal Commission, even a finding in conjunction with a

referral, is merely the start of a further process.

141. Assuming an adverse finding and a referral have been made, the

regulatory authority will consider the referral and initiate such steps as

appear appropriate. Those next steps could include further

investigation. Clearly in the course of those investigations further or

57

more detailed evidence, including exculpatory evidence, may come to

light. Of course, adverse evidence may also be uncovered.

Admissions may be made. The nature of the charges could alter.

Other kinds of relevant conduct may be revealed. All these factors

would be taken into account by any reasonable person considering the

impact of an adverse finding on an affected person’s reputation.

MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS F -

142. This Commission was required to, and did, comply with the rules of

procedural fairness in the exercise of its statutory powers. It may be

helpful to say something about how the requirements of procedural

fairness operate in the context of a Royal Commission, then address

how the requirements were met by this Commission.

143. The application of the rules of procedural fairness is not a rigid

process. Due process requires the implementation of procedures that

are fair and appropriate in the particular case.45 In a Royal

Commission, the most critical rule of procedural fairness is that the

Commission ‘cannot lawfully make any finding adverse to the interests

of (a person) without first giving a (that person) the opportunity to

make submissions against the making of such a finding’.46 The

procedures which were adopted by this Commission included, but went

well beyond, this fundamental requirement. Those procedures

included the following.

45

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 584-5 per Mason J; National Companies and Securities Commission v News Corporation Limited (1984) 156 CLR 296 at 312 per Gibbs CJ. 46

Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 at 600-601 per Mason CJ, Deane J and McHugh J.

58

Practice Direction 1

144. On 26 March 2014, 13 days after the Letters Patent were issued, the

Commission promulgated Practice Direction 1. While further practice

directions were issued during the life at the Commission, Practice

Direction 1 remained the central instrument for the purposes of

regulating the Commission’s procedures. A copy of Practice

Direction 1 is at Appendix 17 of this Report.

145. Practice Direction 1 was based on a form of practice direction

promulgated by the Cole Royal Commission in 2002. The practice

direction issued by the Cole Royal Commission was challenged on

procedural fairness grounds by the CFMEU in particular, but that

challenge was rejected by the Federal Court.47 Thus this Commission

had the benefit of promulgating and proceeding on a Practice Direction

the form and content of which had already been considered by a

superior Court, which had determined that it met the requirements of

procedural fairness.

146. It will nevertheless be helpful to examine some of the central

provisions of Practice Direction 1 in more detail.

147. One of the main purposes of Practice Direction 1 was to ensure that all

persons affected by procedures in this Commission were provided with

guidance as to the procedures which the Commission would adopt.

Among other things, this meant that any affected person could, if

appropriate, take any objection to such procedures. Practice Direction

47 Kingham v Cole [2002] FCA 45; (2002) 118 FCR 289.

59

1, like all practice directions, was published on the Commission’s

website. Paragraph 2 of Practice Direction 1 was in the following

terms:

These practice directions are intended to provide guidance to all persons as to the procedures that the Commissioner will adopt in the ordinary course, and give interested persons a fair opportunity to understand the practices that the Commissioner expects to follow and be followed in the ordinary course of events.

148. Paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 1 noted:

Where the Commissioner thinks it appropriate, he may dispense with or vary these practices and procedures, and any other practices or procedures that are subsequently published or adopted.

149. It is noteworthy that during the entire life of the Commission no person

ever made a formal application to the Commissioner to vary Practice

Direction 1 and pressed it to finality. No person ever made an

application to vary any other practice direction issued by the

Commission. No person ever sought to challenge Practice Direction 1,

nor any other practice direction issued by the Commission, in the

Federal Court or anywhere else.

150. Paragraph 9 of Practice Direction 1 was in the following terms:

However a person who, in the opinion of Counsel Assisting, may be substantially and directly interested in evidence to be produced to the Commission at a hearing will, if reasonably possible and practicable, be notified in advance that it is intended to produce that evidence to the Commission.

151. The purpose of para 9 was to ensure that so far as it was reasonably

possible to do so, persons with a substantial direct interest in the

evidence to be produced were notified in advance so that they could

take any appropriate steps to protect their position or to advance their

60

case. In practical terms para 9 was implemented by the solicitors

assisting the Commission writing to persons potentially affected by the

evidence advising them that a hearing was to take place and that

evidence in which they might have a substantial and direct interest

would be adduced.

152. Other steps were taken to bring the fact of hearings to the public’s

attention. The Commission’s website published in advance

information concerning the hearings which were to take place,

including the union affected and the witnesses who were to be called to

give evidence at such hearings. In the early days of hearings

advertisements were published in the major newspapers notifying

interested persons of pending hearings and in broad terms the nature of

those hearings.

153. These processes ensured that any person affected by a proceeding had

the opportunity to appear in person through legal representatives in

order to ensure that their interests were protected.

154. Paragraphs 10-18 of Practice Direction 1 regulated the process of

giving legal representatives authorisation to appear on behalf of

affected persons. In practical terms most persons who appeared in the

Commission did so through a legal representative and authorisation to

appear was granted as a matter of course.

155. Other provisions in Practice Direction 1 dealt with the production of

materials to the Commission (paras 19-25), making a claim for legal

professional privilege (paras 26-29), making a claim to be excused

from producing documents on the basis of self-incrimination (paras 30-

61

31), transcripts (paras 39-42), and giving prior notice of issues of law

or procedural issues (paras 51-52).

156. The establishment and maintenance of an electronic court book (ECB)

is dealt with at paras 32-38 of Practice Direction 1. The ECB was an

important means of facilitating communications between the

Commission and affected persons. Upon being granted authorisation

to appear a person or his or her legal representatives was allocated a

log-in code for the ECB, enabling that person to access the ECB. As

soon as documents were uploaded to the ECB an email notification

was automatically generated and sent to affected persons. The person

or his or her legal representatives were then able to access and

download the document through their log-in code. This meant that

large quantities of material could be distributed to affected persons

quickly, regardless of their location.

157. The procedures for calling, examining and cross-examining witnesses

are dealt with in paras 43 and following of Practice Direction 1.

158. The procedures for calling and examining witnesses contemplated by

Practice Direction 1 were in due course modified by Practice Direction

2, as discussed below. Subject to that, Practice Direction 1 provided as

follows. At the first or initial public hearing a witness was called and

examined by counsel assisting but there was no cross-examination of

that witness at that time (paras 44-45). The next step was that any

person wishing to test the accuracy of the evidence given at the initial

hearing would put on a witness statement and submissions briefly

identifying the topics in respect of which that person or his or her legal

representative wished to cross-examine the first witness (para 46).

62

When the public hearings resumed the affected person would then

cross-examine the initial witness and that person’s evidence would also

be received.

159. Any person wishing to challenge the evidence given at the initial

hearing had an opportunity to put on evidence and present his or her

case. The process of putting on evidence in a side statement in

response had the further benefit of identifying with some precision

what the controversial issues of fact were.

Legal representatives and due process

160. The fact that affected persons were usually represented by counsel -

often senior counsel - has important implications for due process, as

will now be explained.

161. The inquiries conducted by a Royal Commission are clearly not

adversarial litigation in any conventional sense. Nevertheless,

particularly where the Terms of Reference focus upon corrupt or

inappropriate conduct, as is the case here, some adversarial aspects

may arise. The observations of Sperling J in Morgan v Independent

Commission against Corruption (unrep), 31 October 1995, Supreme

Court of New South Wales, are on point:

The relationship between the Commission and an ‘affected person’ is unquestionably adversarial, and no less so than in criminal proceedings. The interest of the ‘affected person’ is to avoid an adverse finding, whereas the interest of the Commission is to adduce the evidence relevant to the allegation and to make a finding which accords with the evidence and which may be adverse to the interest of the ‘affected person’.

63

162. The legal representatives of affected persons have an important role.

For the most part unions and affected persons retained the services of

highly experienced solicitors, who in turn briefed both junior and

senior counsel. These legal representatives were astute to protect the

interests of those for whom they appeared.

163. It is often said that a Royal Commission has wide powers. In some

respect this is correct. For example a Royal Commission can issue

notices to produce. The recipients must produce the documents. It can

issue summonses to persons to appear before it. Those persons are

obliged to answer questions. However often, particularly when an

investigation is at an early stage, a Royal Commission may be probing

and sifting through a large volume of material in the hope that the

proper issue is uncovered.

164. Lawyers appearing for affected persons have certain advantages. Upon

receipt of a witness statement they are able to take instructions from

the relevant officers or members of the union for which they appear.

They can make forensic decisions as to who might put on evidence or

what documents could be voluntarily produced. Plainly, there is no

obligation upon them to give evidence or produce documents that may

assist the Commission. On the other hand legal representatives

fulfilling their role are likely to produce any evidence whether oral or

documentary which could be exculpatory of the union or another

affected person.

165. The granting of authorisation to appear provided affected persons with

important safeguards. Their representative could cross examine

adverse witnesses. They could elicit from those witnesses evidence

64

which may assist in the (in some ways) adversarial process which was

being undertaken. They could amass other evidence which may have

been of assistance to their client. They could take objections - an

activity which many legal representatives of affected persons pursued

with vigour. They could re-examine in order to explain or clarify

evidence that had already been given. They could make applications

for adjournments if that suited their particular witness. They could

make application to vary practice directions although, as noted above,

this was not something which was pursued in this Commission.

Submissions

166. Following the conclusion of each of the case studies the Commissioner

made directions for the service of written submissions. Counsel

assisting made detailed written submissions analysing both the

evidence that had been adduced in the case study and the conclusions

of fact and law that counsel submitted should follow. Affected persons

then made written submissions responding to counsel assisting.

167. On occasion the submissions of an affected person in response to

counsel assisting were adverse to another affected person.

Accordingly, it was necessary to give affected persons the opportunity

to respond to each other’s submissions. Counsel assisting then made

submissions in reply.

168. In 2014 there were also oral submissions. In 2015 all submissions

were made in writing, in the interests of saving time.

65

Practice Direction 2 and further practice directions

169. Practice Direction 1 was followed in a number of the early hearings of

the Commission. While achieving due process, a number of

administrative or practical problems emerged as Practice Direction 1

was implemented. First, at the initial hearing there was no cross-examination of the witness. While counsel assisting could examine the

witness, counsel assisting was not in receipt of evidence from those

persons who wished to challenge the initial witness, meaning that

counsel assisting was to some extent limited both in understanding

what the issues in controversy were and in putting all material to the

witness. Of course, this could be done at a later hearing. However, it

would have been more efficient for this to have been done at the same

time.

170. Next, a further practical difficulty with Practice Direction 1 was that

persons were recalled to give evidence on a number of occasions. For

witnesses who are minor or peripheral this did not seem necessary.

171. Because of issues of this kind, on 23 May 2014 the Commission

promulgated Practice Direction 2. This varied paras 45 to 48 of

Practice Direction 1 in respect of public hearings to which Practice

Direction 2 applied, while otherwise preserving Practice Direction 1.

172. In essence the change in procedure contemplated by Practice

Direction 2 was that written statements of evidence would be

exchanged prior to calling a witness at a public hearing. Cross-examination would then take place at that hearing. This meant that the

66

issues in controversy were to the extent reasonably possible identified

in advance of the hearing and cross-examination could take place at

that hearing. Of course there were occasions on which new issues

emerged or ongoing lines of inquiry needed to be pursued after the

hearing, but in general terms this procedure made for a more efficient

deployment of the Commission’s resources, while at the same time

preserving safeguards in respect of due process contained within

Practice Direction 1. In particular, for example, a minor or peripheral

witness would only need to be called once.

Summary of the measures taken to ensure procedural fairness

173. As appears from the forgoing, the requirements of procedural fairness

were complied with through various means. They included the

following:

(a) prior to the initial rounds of hearings in 2014 the Commission

placed advertisements in major newspapers alerting interested

persons that hearings were about to commence;

(b) the Commission published on its website notice of pending

hearings, including the union affected and lists of witnesses;

(c) persons who could be affected by the evidence were

identified and given notice in advance of the hearing so that

they could take steps to protect their position, including by

seeking authorisation to appear;

67

(d) to the extent reasonably possible, and where otherwise

appropriate, witness statements and relevant documents were

provided to affected persons in advance of the hearing

through the ECB. This was particularly the case once

Practice Direction 2 came into force save for a limited

number of instances where disclosure in advance could have

undermined the purposes of the factual inquiry sought to be

undertaken;

(e) at the outset of the hearing of each case study counsel

assisting delivered an opening which foreshadowed to the

extent reasonably possible in the context of an ongoing

inquiry the main factual and legal issues;

(f) during examination by counsel assisting all reasonable efforts

were made to put to the witness the facts which could lead to

an adverse finding, so as to give the witness the opportunity

to reply to those facts;

(g) most witnesses were represented by counsel who were

entitled to, and did, take steps to protect his or her client’s

interests, including the step of objecting to any questions

which had been put by counsel assisting;

(h) persons who were affected were entitled to put on witness

statements and to request counsel assisting to call witnesses

or request them to put on statements. This was treated

favourably in virtually every case;

68

(i) proceedings were conducted in public and were live-streamed. To this there was one exception. On a limited

number of occasions evidence was taken in private. But later,

in many instances but not all, either the transcript of the

private hearing was tendered or was otherwise made

available;

(j) transcripts of each day’s proceedings were published on the

Commission’s website;

(k) after the conclusion of the hearing timetables were directed

for the exchange of submissions. Counsel assisting made

detailed written submissions which set out comprehensively

the relevant facts and what counsel assisting submitted were

the appropriate findings, including adverse findings; and

(l) all affected persons then had the opportunity to respond to

such submissions by putting on their own submissions

advancing their position and responding to any proposed

adverse findings.

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES G -

174. As has already been stated, the Commission is not a Court. Nor is the

Commission bound by the rules of evidence.

69

The rule in Browne v Dunn

175. A number of affected parties have complained in submissions that

certain matters were not, or not sufficiently, ‘put’ to witnesses in the

course of their examinations. In substance, the proposition underlying

these submissions is that the rule in Browne v Dunn48 requires that the

basis upon which it is said that a witness’s evidence should be rejected

should be put to the witness during cross-examination, so that the

witness can give his or her explanation.

176. The rule in Browne v Dunn was discussed in the Interim Report.49 It

was noted there that the rule need not be complied with if notice has

come to a witness in another way. It was also noted that on quite a

number of occasions it was agreed that in order to expedite hearings

the rule would not be applied in a pedantic way.

177. In the Final Report of the Royal Commission into the Building and

Construction Industry (Cole Royal Commission) arguments of this

kind were rejected on the basis that the rule in Browne v Dunn did not

apply in the context of a Royal Commission.50 The following analysis

owes much to that discussion.

178. First, a Royal Commission is an evolving inquiry. Issues may arise at

short notice. Leads may arise and may be pursued. Counsel assisting

48 (1893) 6 R 67. 49 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, ch 1, p 7 [23]. 50

Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, Final Report (2003), Vol 2, ch 5, pp 49-51.

70

may not be cognisant of all the issues, let alone all the evidence, at the

time of an examination. It therefore may simply not be possible for the

rule in Browne v Dunn to be observed, or observed as strictly as might

be the case in a proceeding in Court.

179. Secondly, in every case witnesses were put on notice of any adverse

findings by the provision of detailed submissions from counsel

assisting or correspondence from the Commission. Witnesses had the

opportunity to put on submissions of their own. In some cases,

affected persons putting on submissions also sought to adduce further

witness statements.

180. Thirdly, this Royal Commission (like many others) was required to

carry out a wide-ranging factual inquiry in a limited time. Procedures

were adopted to expedite this process. One important factor arising in

this context was that it was neither possible nor appropriate for counsel

assisting to put exhaustively every matter to a witness. There was not

the time.

181. On the other hand, the adoption of flexible procedures also had

benefits flowing the other way. Witnesses could be recalled if

necessary. Some gave evidence on a number of occasions. Persons

adversely affected by evidence had the right to give evidence, to invite

counsel assisting to call witnesses favourable to their cause, and to

invite counsel assisting to tender documentary evidence. Persons

affected were also at liberty to apply to have the Practice Directions

amended if they felt they had been disadvantaged although, as noted

above, no person pressed a formal application of this kind.

71

182. With two qualifications this Report expresses general agreement with

the conclusions expressed in the report of the Cole Royal Commission,

namely that that the rule in Browne v Dunn has no or limited operation

in the context of a Royal Commission.

183. The first qualification is that, in fact, in a great many cases counsel

assisting and counsel for other persons did put the substance of the

adverse evidence to a witness for his or her comment, regardless of

whether or not that was strictly required.

184. The second qualification is that while the rule in Browne v Dunn is

often described as a rule of fairness to the witness it has another

important implication for the fact finding process. If a witness has

given evidence and not been challenged at all, at least on a particular

issue, it may be difficult in a practical sense for a Commission to arrive

at a finding inconsistent with the witness’s evidence on that issue. In

those circumstances there is no unfairness to the witness. But a failure

to question can weaken the integrity of the fact-finding process. The

conclusion expressed in the Cole Royal Commission was that ‘a Royal

Commission is entitled to reject a witness’ evidence even if the witness

had not been cross-examined in relation to that evidence.’51 With

respect, this may be correct as a general proposition. But a Royal

Commission would generally be slow to reject sworn evidence which

had not been challenged, tested, or explored unless that evidence was

inconsistent with the contemporaneous documents or the objective

force of circumstances.

51

Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, Final Report (2003), Vol 2, ch 5, p 51.

72

Double hearsay

185. The CFMEU has raised concerns about the Commission admitting into

evidence material which was said to have been either hearsay or even

‘hearsay upon hearsay’.52

186. The first response to this may be made by way of general observation.

The CFMEU relies upon what it describes as the ‘Beach Report’,

although it cites only some analysis from a textbook in relation to that

report. Presumably the CFMEU is referring to the Report of the Board

of Inquiry into Allegations against Members of the Victoria Police

Force which was published in 1978. A number of observations should

be made about this report.

187. An initial point is that the law of evidence now is different from what it

was in 1978. There are now many more exceptions to the hearsay rule,

contained in the Uniform Evidence legislation and elsewhere. Hearsay

evidence is now routinely received in a wide variety of situations even

in a court bound by the strict rules of evidence. Indeed second hand

hearsay may also be received. Further, the ‘Beach Report’ reached

conclusions to the effect that members of the Victoria Police Force had

committed serious criminal offences, including conspiring to give false

evidence and harassing, intimidating and assaulting certain persons.53

In contrast in this Commission findings have only been made to the

effect that persons ‘may’ have committed offences or engaged in other

unlawful or improper conduct.

52 Submissions of the CFMEU, 5/11/15, pp 5-8, paras 24-35. 53 See pages 50-58.

73

188. Secondly, the theory that there are incurable vices in admitting hearsay

evidence is undercut by the even more liberal approaches which have

been adopted in England. In civil cases the rule against hearsay has

virtually been abolished. In criminal cases there are extensive

exceptions.

189. Thirdly, the CFMEU does not identify any actual occasion upon which

counsel assisting has submitted that hearsay upon hearsay evidence

should be relied upon as the basis for an adverse finding.

190. Fourthly, on 20 July 2015 it was indicated that certain evidence which

the CFMEU objected to would be admitted subject to objection in the

course of final address. It was suggested that much evidence which

might be objectionable if tendered in litigation would in the end turn

out not to be relied on by counsel assisting in final address. Only then

would a debate on admissibility have concrete importance. Underlying

these propositions was the assumption that it would be a waste of time

to debate admissibility until it was clear whether or not the evidence

objected to did have importance. The CFMEU reserved its right to put

submissions against the reasons enunciated for that course. It was

given leave to put on written submissions by ‘early August’54 or

‘within a week or two after we leave Canberra’.55 In the event no

written submissions were put on within either of those deadlines.

54 20/7/15, T:395.21. 55 20/7/15, T:396.40-41.

74

THIS COMMISSION AND THE UNIONS H -

191. Some endeavoured to paint this Commission as an attack on unions. It

was not. This point has been made repeatedly.

192. Thus, at a hearing of the Commission on 9 April 2014 it was observed

that the Terms of Reference ‘rest on certain assumptions which are not

hostile to trade unions’. The observations proceeded:

The Terms of Reference do not assume that it is desirable to abolish trade unions. They do not assume that it is desirable to curb their role to the point of insignificance. Instead they assume that it is worth inquiring into how well and how lawfully that role is performed.

193. Unions and their officials were then invited to offer evidence to the

Commission themselves:56

Unions and their officials are invited to offer evidence to the Commission to the effect that they have created no “relevant entities”. If they have, they are invited to offer evidence that they have structures or rules or understandings in place which prevent relevant entities causing any harm to unions or others or breaching any law, regulation or professional standard. And they are invited to offer evidence that they have structures, rules or understandings in place which prevent any of the conduct impliedly criticised by the Terms of Reference from taking place.

194. Generally speaking this invitation was not taken up.

195. The important role that unions occupy in Australian industrial relations

was acknowledged in 2015. For example, on 23 April 2015 counsel

assisting pointed out that it needs to be recognised that unions provide

many important benefits to their members.

56 23/4/15, T:22.1-11.

75

196. Counsel assisting continued:57

Among other things, unions seek better, safer and fairer working conditions for their members and, for that matter, for other workers who are not union members but enjoy the same benefits.

Unions can recover wages or other entitlements when employers fail to pay them. They investigate and remedy safety issues in the workplace, an important matter calling for constant vigilance.

197. Counsel assisting was at pains to emphasise that the task of this

Commission in complying with the Terms of Reference should not

focus entirely on problematic issues that may have been uncovered.

Rather any such problem areas need to be considered in a broader

context. That context included the important benefits provided by

unions to their members as summarised above. Counsel assisting went

on to consider the role of unions in a variety of different contexts.

198. On that occasion counsel assisting further stated:58

The problem is not with union members. It is not with unions themselves, which play an important part in the industrial relations system and have done so for a long time.

It is a problem with some union officials.

Indeed, the evidence and findings of the Commission to date can be distilled into a least this proposition: some union leaders disregard their legal obligations and duties.

199. These points were publically reiterated by counsel assisting in a

statement made on 19 May 2015, at the time of launching the

Commission’s Discussion Paper.

57 23/4/15, T:22.2-11. 58 See 23/4/15, T:34.27-36.

76

200. Unfortunately, the union movement in the main did not endeavour to

enter constructive debate with the Commission.

The ACTU

201. An example is the ACTU. As noted above, in 2014 the Commission

released a number of issues papers for discussion and debate. The

Commission received a number of responses to these issues papers

from various parties. However on 13 June 2014 the ACTU wrote to

the Commission announcing that it would not be responding to three

issues papers released by the Commission.

202. Then, on 19 May 2015 the Commission released the Discussion Paper.

The Discussion Paper called for responses by 21 August 2015,

allowing interested persons some three months to prepare their

submissions.

203. Following the refusal in 2014 by the ACTU to participate in debate on

the issues papers, the Commission was keen to do what it could to

enlist the ACTU’s aid in the policy debate in 2015. Any policy debate

of that kind about law reform would obviously have been greatly

assisted by input from so knowledgeable an institution as the ACTU.

204. Accordingly on 19 May 2015, the day on which the Commission

released its policy paper, a letter was written to Ms Ged Kearney,

President of the ACTU, enclosing a copy of the Discussion Paper. The

letter to Ms Kearney included the following:

77

This letter is written in the hope that the Australian Council of Trade Unions will be able to respond to the attached Discussion Paper: Options for Law Reform. It is being released today. The Australian Council of Trade Unions possesses the fullest knowledge of the affairs, problems and future directions of Australian trade unions. It is appreciated that the Council may not agree with many of the possibilities raised for discussion. But the whole point of the exercise is to elicit opinions from those with experience and expertise.

I look forward to a submission from the Council by the closing date Friday 21 August 2015.

205. No response to that letter to Ms Kearney was received. There was not

even a formal acknowledgment of receipt. The ACTU simply

appeared to ignore the letter. The ACTU did not involve itself in the

process in any way. It failed to supply any submissions in response to

the Discussion Paper by the due date or at all. It refused to engage in a

constructive way with any debate.

206. Despite that, an attempt has been made to understand the point of view

of the ACTU by examining many submissions which the ACTU has

made to other public inquiries on topics similar to at least some of

those raised in the Discussion Paper. Thus to the extent possible the

views of the ACTU have been taken into account and considered

despite its refusal to contribute positively to the process.

207. Next, the ACTU (and others) have accused this Commission of leaking

material to the media. This allegation cannot be sustained. It did not

happen.

208. The first and most prominent occasion on which this accusation was

made was at a hearing in Melbourne on 8 July 2014. Senior Counsel

for the CFMEU made without any notice a serious accusation of the

release of confidential material to the media. The CFMEU then

78

submitted a large amount of material to the AFP seeking that it

investigate whether or not a leak had occurred from the Commission.

The AFP undertook an investigation. It concluded that no leak had

occurred.

209. On two occasions material was released by the Commission on an

embargoed basis to representatives of all of the main media

organisations. The two items of material so released were: (1) counsel

assisting’s opening of 23 April 2015; and (2) the Commission’s

Discussion Paper of 19 May 2015. Each related solely to policy or law

reform matters. Neither contained confidential or sensitive evidentiary

material. Each was released to representatives of all of the main media

organisations. In each case, the purpose was to enable these

representatives to absorb a large amount of material (particularly in

respect of the Discussion Paper) shortly in advance of its public

release. It was hoped by that means to enhance public debate and

commentary. The Commission did not observe any practice pursuant

to which confidential evidentiary material was released to the media in

advance of its public tender or pursuant to which members of the

media received background briefings concerning the content of public

hearings in advance of those hearings. When evidentiary material was

tendered it was uploaded to the Commission’s website and the media

and for that matter any other interested person was free to download it.

Legal representatives for parties

210. The conduct of legal representatives other than the various counsel

who acted as counsel assisting calls for some comment. The

79

traditional customs of the Australian bars depended on the theory that

particular points of view could be argued with vigour, so long as

personal courtesies between counsel were observed. Perhaps the

etiquette of the Australian bars has changed in the past 15 years. Or

perhaps it is thought that in a Royal Commission counsel may utter any

defamations - sometimes oral, sometimes in written final address -

they feel like expressing at the expense of counsel assisting. Or

perhaps it is thought that those representing trade unions or their

officials have some particular licence not conferred in other

circumstances in this respect. It would be wearisome to give

illustrations of the offending behaviour. But the fact is that many

counsel engaged in personal attacks on counsel assisting to varying

extents. This was totally unwarranted. Most of the hearings were

conducted by two senior counsel assisting, Mr J Stoljar SC and Ms S

McNaughton SC. Lest the close reader of submissions be misled, it is

desirable to stress that it would be difficult to think of calmer, fairer

and more courteous practitioners. There is no respect in which their

professional conduct was open to the ill-founded criticism it received.

211. It is now desirable to turn, with some relief, to a more substantive

point. Counsel for affected persons frequently inserted in their

submissions that counsel assisting were pursuing a particular ‘case

theory’. In this context, the term ‘case theory’ often seemed to be a

pejorative one. It was used to hint at some sinister intent, although the

intent was never spelt out in any clear or explicit way. Fundamentally,

the suggestion seemed to be that counsel assisting was pursuing a ‘case

theory’ to the exclusion of any other evidence and was thereby, in

some ill-defined way, ‘biased’.

80

212. The first point to be made in response to such suggestions is that they

proceed upon a fundamental misconception. There is nothing

inappropriate about counsel assisting in a commission of inquiry

having a theory of the case. On the contrary, it is the duty of counsel

assisting to have a theory of the case, if by that expression is meant a

hypothesis or conception of where the evidence might lead. Counsel

assisting who did not have some theory of the case would be doing

nothing more than aimlessly asking questions in the hope that some

interesting evidence would emerge. And it would not be possible to

put affected persons on notice of where the investigations were going.

A similar argument was recently considered by McDougall J

concerning the Independent Commission Against Corruption of New

South Wales in relation to which the following was stated:59

[I]t would be quite extraordinary if a body having the powerful and important investigative and reporting functions of the Commission were to launch an investigation, and as part of that inquiry conduct lengthy public inquiries (with all the risk to reputation and pocket involved), without having at least a “case theory” that the subject matter of the investigation involved corrupt conduct within the remit of the Commission to consider, and that the persons to be examined at the public inquiry might reasonably be suspected of having been engaged in that corrupt conduct.

[…]

In truth, if the “case theory” allegations are to go anywhere, it must be on the basis that the Commissioner was so firmly wedded to the case theory that she was, or had become, incapable of bringing an independent evaluative mind to all the evidence gathered, and of considering whether, on the basis of all that evidence, the case theory could be maintained.

213. Moreover, in a circumstance in which there was conflicting evidence

on particular points, in the absence of some ‘case theory’ counsel

assisting would not be in a position to do their duty to assist the

59 McCloy v Latham [2015] NSWSC 1879 at [16] and [18].

81

Commissioner to arrive at or reject a conclusion by considering the

points favouring it and the points contradicting it. Rather, counsel

assisting would simply present all viewpoints from all parties and leave

it to the Commissioner to try and work out from the mass of material

what the appropriate outcome or finding might be. Counsel assisting

has to formulate some working framework for what has gone on, some

structure by which the evidence can be ordered. That is one of the

ways they can assist the Commission.

214. The necessity for some form of case theory was amply demonstrated in

a number of the case studies that have been heard by this Commission.

An example is the Cbus leaks. The Commission received, through a

whistle blower, information to the effect that two senior female

employees of Cbus had leaked certain material to the CFMEU. That

information could be designated a ‘case theory’. When initially

examined on this issue on 7 July 2014 the two relevant employees of

Cbus indignantly denied any involvement. Their demeanour during

that examination might be described as hostile and scornful. Counsel

assisting persisted with the ‘case theory’. It was not until 3 October

2014, after extraordinarily meticulous and expensive inquiries had

been completed, that the general accuracy of the ‘case theory’ was

finally revealed, and admitted by one of the employees. It was not

until 10 December 2014 that the other admitted it. Even now it is not

entirely clear how far Cbus and the CFMEU admit it, though in part at

least they do.

215. So far as the role of counsel assisting is concerned, the only difficulty

about proceeding on the basis of a ‘case theory’ is if counsel

propounding the theory are so fixed on it that they become unwilling or

82

unable to call other evidence before the Commission unless it accords

with the working theory. However, this did not happen in this

Commission. Indeed, somewhat ironically counsel assisting were also

on occasion criticised by affected persons for departing from what had

previously been an apparent view of the case by reason of evidence

emerging during the course of the case study. In litigation counsel may

be criticised for departing from their ‘case’ as expressed in pleadings

or in their client’s evidence. That is not a just criticism of counsel

assisting in a Royal Commission. In an investigative process there can

be no criticism for counsel assisting or the person who has to reach

conclusions about the facts shifting from what had earlier seemed to be

an appropriate view of the facts any more than there could be criticism

for deploying some case theory. There were many occasions on which

counsel assisting moved from what had initially seemed to be the case;

arrived at the view that no submission in favour of an adverse finding

should be made; or made submissions based on evidence that had been

adduced during the course of hearings which counsel assisting did not

know of in advance. There is nothing at all wrong with this.

VOLUME TWO OF THIS REPORT I -

216. This Volume addresses case studies involving the MUA, the TWU, the

Electrical Trades Union of NSW (ETU NSW), the CEPU, the NUW,

New South Wales Branch (NUW NSW) and the HSU.

83

Part one: the MUA

217. Chapter 1 concerns the MUA. In particular it concerns payments

totalling $3,200,000 by a number of employers in the maritime

industry at the direction or request of the MUA or its officials. These

include payments made to the MUA, payments made to a separate

entity established by officials of the MUA and also a payment to a

political candidate, who happens to be the Deputy State Secretary of

the MUA, Western Australia Branch.

218. The Chapter concludes that the payments were not made by employers

completely voluntarily for legitimate purposes. They were made to

secure industrial peace from, or to keep favour with, the MUA. In

some cases they had to be made repeatedly.

Part two: TWU (WA)

219. Chapter 2 centres on two events concerning the TWU (WA). One was

the purchase, in 2012 and 2013, by the outgoing and the incoming

Secretaries of the Western Australian branch of the TWU, of two Ford

F350s. The cost was about $150,000 each. The purchase was for their

use. But it was not they who paid. It was the TWU which paid. The

other event was the making of a significant redundancy payment to the

outgoing Secretary in July 2013.

220. These various transactions were very advantageous to the two officials,

and they were correspondingly harmful to the TWU. The Report has

concluded that the involvement of these officials in these transactions

84

may have given rise to breaches of a number of duties. The matter has

been referred to the Fair Work Commission for consideration as to

whether there have been breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Part three: CEPU

221. Chapter 3.1 involves the ETU (NSW). It deals with 3 main issues.

222. The first issue concerns a loan for $500,000 made in December 2010

by the ETU NSW (ETU Loan) to the Australian Labor Party (ALP

NSW). The conclusions reached in relation to this first issue include

the following:

(a) the ETU loan was made in breach of the rules of the ETU

NSW because neither the State Council of the ETU NSW nor

its Executive gave prior approval to it;

(b) Commissioner Bernard Riordan was not in breach of his

duties to the ETU NSW in relation to the ETU loan;

(c) Paul Sinclair, Assistant Secretary of the ETU NSW, may have

been victimised by his colleagues for giving evidence to the

Royal Commission, which they seem to have perceived to

have been unsatisfactory. In one sense this is the most

disturbing aspect of the whole case study.

223. Secondly, two sets of Federal Court proceedings initiated and carried

on by union officials may have been an abuse of process, because they

85

were brought for the purposes of advancing political interests and not

for the purposes of vindicating legal rights.

224. Thirdly, there is an analysis of the ETU officers fund which reveals

two governance problems.

225. Chapter 3.2 addresses the activities of the Australian Capital Territory

sub branch of the New South Wales branch of the Plumbing Division

of the CEPU (ACT CEPU). The main issue arising in Chapter 3.2 is:

did a number of visits by a CEPU official to building sites in the ACT

involve abuses of rights of entry conferred by the Work Health and

Safety Act 2011 (ACT)? For the reasons set out in Chapter 3.2 a

finding is made that the answer to the question may be affirmative.

Part four: NUW NSW

226. Chapter 4 is about a number of matters concerning the NUW NSW.

One of the issues considered by the Chapter is the misuse of union

credit cards. Until the Commission commenced its inquiries Derrick

Belan was the Secretary of the NUW NSW, having succeeded his

father who had held the position since 1983. Derrick Belan resigned in

October 2015, shortly after his niece, Danielle O’Brien, departed the

employment of the union amid concerns about credit card misuse. The

Chapter also concerns the use of a fund known as a ‘Campaign Fund’,

which was for a time operated by way of a bank account in the name of

‘The Derrick Belan Team’. The Chapter is also concerned with

payments by the NUW NSW to Paul Gibson, a former state

parliamentarian. The Chapter also discusses a Deed of Release and

86

Settlement between Derrick Belan, and the NUW NSW. Finally, the

chapter concerns governance issues which flow from the problems

which emerged from these issues.

227. The findings are that a number of offences may have been committed

in relation to the misuse of union credit cards by Danielle O’Brien,

Nick Belan and Derrick Belan, and appropriate referrals have been

made. The issue as to whether Wayne Meaney, the successor as

Secretary of the NUW NSW, may have used union credit cards

inappropriately has been referred for investigation to the appropriate

authorities.

228. In relation to the arrangement with Paul Gibson, Derrick Belan may

have contravened ss 285, 286 and 287 of the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) and s 268 of the Industrial Relations

Act 1996 (NSW). The matter has been referred to the appropriate

authorities.

229. In relation to the negotiation of the severance terms with Derrick

Belan, both Derrick Belan and Wayne Meaney (as the signatory to the

Deed on behalf the NUW NSW) may have contravened ss 285, 286

and 287 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth)

and s 268 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW). The matter has

been referred to the appropriate authorities.

230. The significant failures of governance within the NUW NSW in recent

years lead to the conclusion that Derrick Belan, Wayne Meaney and

Marilyn Issanchon may have contravened s 285 of the Fair Work

87

(Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth). The matter has been

referred to the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission.

Part five: HSU

231. Chapter 5.1 concerns the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (Peter

Mac). As its name suggests, Peter Mac is an institution which conducts

research into cancer. It fell into an industrial dispute with its

employees. The industrial dispute arose from alleged breaches of

various industrial instruments leading to a substantial underpayment of

research technologists employed by Peter Mac. The dispute was settled

in 2003.

232. Katherine Jackson was at that time the secretary of the HSU Victoria

No.3 Branch. She played a key role in the settlement of the industrial

dispute. As part of that settlement, in a Deed of Release, she negotiated

a payment to the HSU of up to $250,000 to cover legal and ‘other’

expenses the HSU had supposedly incurred in the course of resolving

the dispute, and ‘future expenses’ it supposedly expected to incur in

connection to implementing the settlement. Peter Mac agreed to pay up

to that amount upon presentation of an ‘itemised statement’.

233. Katherine Jackson fraudulently misrepresented the expenses the HSU

had incurred to procure payment of the maximum amount of $250,000

from Peter Mac. To the same end she fraudulently misrepresented the

expenses which the HSU expected to incur in future.

88

234. The Commission has referred Katherine Jackson to the regulatory

authorities for consideration as to whether her conduct in this regard

may have amounted to a criminal offence.

235. Chapter 5.2 discusses many of the difficulties and tribulations the HSU

has undergone over the last few years. Many of those difficulties

centre around three senior figures in the union: Michael Williamson,

Craig Thomson and Katherine Jackson.

236. Michael Williamson pleaded guilty to charges of defrauding the HSU

and the New South Wales Union by the provision of false invoices in

the amount of $938,000. Craig Thomson was convicted on criminal

charges concerning misuse of HSU funds for personal expenses. In

separate civil proceedings he was found to have misused HSU funds

for a number of services. Katherine Jackson was ordered by the

Federal Court of Australia to pay compensation to the HSU of

$1,403,338. Her activities are in part also the subject of a continuing

criminal investigation.

237. This misappropriation and deceit flourished in a culture then pervasive

at the HSU. Senior management operated with a sense of complete

entitlement in respect of the use of members’ money. They lacked any

scruple and they operated without proper control or supervision.

238. This chapter also includes as Appendix G a discussion of Peter Mylan

who was Acting General Secretary of HSU East from 22 September

2011 until 21 June 2012. Peter Mylan may have breached his duties

under the FW(RO) Act and may also have breached s 267 of the

Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) and s 192H of the Crimes Act

89

1900 (NSW). This Report and any other relevant materials have been

referred to the appropriate regulatory authorities for consideration

whether proceedings against Peter Mylan should be instituted for the

above possible contraventions.

VOLUME THREE OF THIS REPORT J -

239. All of the case studies in Volume 3 relate to the CFMEU.

Part six: CFMEU ACT

Halafihi Kivalu

240. Chapter 6.1 is an introductory chapter. Chapter 6.2 deals with Halafihi

Kivalu. He was formerly a senior official and long-term employee of

the CFMEU ACT. During the course of hearings in Canberra in July

2014, Halafihi Kivalu conceded receiving approximately $100,000

from two employers. He contends that these payments were gifts.

After he gave that evidence other employers came forward and made

allegations concerning payments that they had made to Halafihi

Kivalu. Following the hearings Halafihi Kivalu was charged. The

matter is presently before the ACT courts. Accordingly no conclusions

have been expressed in this Report concerning the lawfulness of

Halafihi Kivalu’s conduct.

90

Pressure to enter enterprise agreements

241. Chapter 6.3 analyses a number of case studies involving the CFMEU

ACT. The case studies in Chapter 6.3 examine some of the ways in

which the CFMEU has significant influence over which companies

obtain work in Canberra. They focus on the question of whether the

CFMEU exercises or purports to exercise rights of entry under Work

Health & Safety legislation for the purposes of applying industrial

pressure to participants in the industry.

Membership issues

242. Chapter 6.4 deals with membership issues. It concerns instances of

CFMEU officials applying pressure to employers to ensure that their

employees were CFMEU members.

Anti-competitive conduct

243. Chapter 6.5 examines potentially anti-competitive conduct by CFMEU

officials with particular reference to the cartel provisions in the

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). At the conclusion of the

hearings in Canberra in July 2015 the Australian Competition and

Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced that it had commenced

making inquiries into cartel conduct in the building industry in the

ACT. A joint agency agreement has been entered into between the

ACCC and the Trade Union Royal Commission Taskforce.

91

244. Counsel assisting submitted that the evidence reveals an industry with

a number of features that operate to reduce competition substantially.

Those features included: CFMEU pattern EBAs, an expectation on the

part of CFMEU EBA contractors that the CFMEU will stop contractors

without a CFMEU EBA from working in the commercial construction

industry and a willingness on the part of CFMEU officials to satisfy

that expectation.

245. There was evidence, also, of cartel conduct and of attempts by CFMEU

officials induce it. It is with that conduct that this Chapter is

principally concerned. One simple example in the evidence concerned

a bricklayer, referred to in the evidence as Charlie. Charlie was

charging a builder $4 per block. This was less than bricklayers with

EBAs who were charging at least $6 per block. A ‘compliant’ EBA

bricklayer found out that Charlie was working on a particular site and

told a CFMEU organiser named Johnny Lomax. He asked Johnny

Lomax, in effect, to stop Charlie from working. Johnny Lomax

promptly located Charlie and went to see him. In substance, he told

Charlie that he could not charge $4 per block and that he needed to get

an EBA and price properly if he wanted to do any work in Canberra.

Johnny Lomax enlisted the help of another EBA bricklayer to help

Charlie price for the next job. Johnny Lomax reported back to the

original complainant bricklayer who indicated that he would be content

if Charlie complied with Johnny Lomax’s request.

246. In light of the ongoing ACCC investigation, and the possibility that

further or other factual material might emerge, no findings are made in

Chapter 6.5 about whether there may have been contraventions of

provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

92

Creative Safety Initiatives

247. Chapter 6.6 deals with the Creative Safety Initiatives Trust. The

Report finds that there have been significant failures of governance by

the directors of the trustee of that trust and of Construction Charitable

Works Ltd (CCW), a registered charity. CCW’s funds have been

diverted for non-charitable purposes, for the benefit of the CFMEU

ACT. By causing or allowing the diversion to occur some of the

directors may have breached their duties to CCW. This issue has been

referred to the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission so

that it can give consideration to revoking CCW’s registration as a

charity.

248. Further, the CFMEU ACT includes various clauses in its pattern

enterprise agreement that provide a disguise to financial benefit to the

union. The inclusion of those clauses has created an environment in

which there are inherent conflicts of interest between union officials

and the workers they represent and a substantial systemic risk of

breaches of fiduciary duty. Owing to uncertainty in the law, no finding

is made concerning whether or not the CFMEU ACT may have

engaged in third line forcing or exclusive dealing contrary to the

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). However, the Report and

the materials obtained by the Commission have been referred to the

Australian Federal Police and the ACT Gaming and Racing

Commission to investigate the commission of possible criminal

offences against the Criminal Code (ACT) and s 65 of the Taxation

Administration Act 1999 (ACT) in relation to matters concerning the

Gaming Machine Act 2004 (ACT).

93

Part seven: CFMEU NSW

Cbus leak

249. Chapter 7.1 deals with the Cbus leak, a matter initially considered in

2014, but not finalised. Cbus is the name of a superannuation trust

fund. On 29 July 2013 a senior Cbus executive travelled from

Melbourne to the CFMEU NSW offices at Lidcombe in Sydney. She

did so with the knowledge and participation of a more senior

executive. Her purpose was to deliver some spreadsheets containing

personal confidential information about the employees of two

companies. The ultimate recipient of the spreadsheets was to be the

State Secretary of the CFMEU NSW, Construction and General

Division. An official of the CFMEU then used the information to

contact some of the employees with the view to making them

disgruntled with their employers.

250. The case study is important because the release of confidential

personal information by Cbus to an outside party, the CFMEU, was

wrong. The release was wrong in many ways. The release was a

breach of trust by the trustee. The release contravened the Cbus Trust

Deed, cl 6.4. The release was the result of officers of the Trustee

having procured a breach of trust. The release was a breach of

contractual duties owed to the employees of the two companies. The

release was a breach of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), s 16A. The release

was a breach of various contractual duties created by the contracts of

employment under which the executives were engaged.

94

251. The executives of Cbus conducted themselves as they did at the behest

of the CFMEU. This was a completely inappropriate use of power by

the CFMEU. The episode is also important because of the reaction of

the Cbus interests and the CFMEU as the details about what had

happened trickled out. On 1 August 2013 the solicitors for the two

companies began to complain about leaked personal information to

both the CFMEU and Cbus. On 11 May 2014 and on succeeding days

articles in the Fairfax press described revelations by the official of the

CFMEU who had contacted the employees about his role in what had

happened. The responses of Cbus and the CFMEU have involved

wilful blindness. They have involved massive mendacity to the point

of perjury. Those traits were revealed before both the Commission

began and in the course of its inquiries and hearings. Cbus has made

almost grovelling acknowledgements that the executives were at fault.

But these acknowledgements took a long time to emerge - until

November 2014. The acknowledgement by the CFMEU that its

officials were at fault has taken even longer - until September 2015.

252. Issues concerning the giving of false evidence by two of the executives

and possible contraventions of s 6H of the Royal Commissions Act

1902 (Cth) are now with the Commonwealth Director of Public

Prosecutions and in the Victorian Court system. They are not the

subject of further consideration. However it has been concluded that

David Atkin, the Chief Executive Officer of Cbus, was involved in the

leak in the manner described in Chapter 7.1 and may have contravened

s 182 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). A number of conclusions

concerning cultural problems within Cbus are also expressed.

95

Payments to organisers

253. Chapter 7.2 deals with the affairs of George Alex, Brian Parker and

Darren Greenfield. Again this was a case study touched upon but not

finalised in 2014. The principal issue addressed in Chapter 7.2 is

whether cash payments were made to an organiser with the CFMEU

NSW for favouring businesses associated with George Alex and

Joseph Antoun. The evidence demonstrates that those payments were

made to Darren Greenfield. During 2013 regular cash withdrawals of

$2,500 were made from a bank account operated a scaffolding business

called ‘Elite’. These payments were referred to within Elite as ‘Union

payments’. A substantial body of documentary evidence, principally

text messages between George Alex and others, demonstrates that cash

payments in the amount of $2,500 were made by George Alex and

Joseph Antoun to Darren Greenfield.

Donations and EBAs

254. Chapter 7.3 deals with donations and EBAs. The central issue in this

chapter is whether the CFMEU NSW improperly obtained donations

from various companies. It has been found that a number of persons

including persons within the CFMEU NSW may have committed

criminal offences against the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991 (NSW).

This Report and all relevant materials have been referred to the

Minister ministering the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991 (NSW) in

order that consideration be given to conducting an inquiry pursuing to

Division 1 of Part 3 of that Act into all of the CFMEU NSW’s

practices concerning charitable fundraising.

96

Building Trades Group & Alcohol Committee

255. Chapter 7.4 deals with the Building Trades Group Drug & Alcohol

Committee (BTG D&A Committee). The first matter examined is the

payment of $100,000 made in April 2006 by Thiess-Hochtief Joint

Venture which carried out the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link. The

payment was made to the BTG D&A Committee. The payment was

ostensibly for the purposes of drug and alcohol safety training. In fact,

most of the money ended up, after round robins of payments over three

years, in the ‘fighting fund’ of the CFMEU NSW. Findings are made

to the effect that the $100,000 payment may have been a ‘corrupt

commission’ given and solicited in breach of s 249B of the Crimes Act

1900 (NSW), and that there may have been aiding and abetting of

those possible offenses. Appropriate referrals have been made.

256. The second matter examined in this chapter relates to a clause in the

CFMEU NSW enterprise bargaining agreements. Pursuant to that

clause, employers made payments to the BTG D&A Committee for the

purpose of assisting ‘with the provision of drug and alcohol

rehabilitation and treatment service/safety programs for the building

industry’. From 2004 to 2011 inclusive, employers paid approximately

$2.6 million to the BTG D&A Committee pursuant to the clause. Over

that time, approximately half of that money was syphoned to the

CFMEU NSW and deposited in its general revenue.

97

Committee to Defend Trade Union Rights

257. Chapter 7.5 deals with the Committee to Defend Trade Union Rights

Pty Ltd (CTDTUR). The CTDTUR is the corporate trustee of the

Defend Trade Union Rights Trust (the Trust). On 26 September 2005,

the CFMEU NSW transferred $7,000,000 out of its general operating

funds into the Trust. Apart from de minimis contributions, the

CFMEU NSW has been the only contributor to the Trust.

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of distributions made from

the Trust have been to the CFMEU NSW. For all practical purposes,

the CFMEU NSW retains control over the Trust and its assets.

258. In this chapter, findings are made to the effect that the Trust may have

been established, and the transfer of $7,000,000 to the Trust on 26

September 2005 may have been made, to defraud future creditors,

including potentially the Commonwealth of Australia, contrary to s

37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). Findings are also made

that in supporting the establishment of the Trust and the said transfer a

number of senior official of the CFMEU NSW may have breached

their duties to the union to act for a proper purpose.

U-Plus/Coverforce

259. Chapter 7.6 deals with U-Plus and Coverforce. Since 2003 the

CFMEU NSW has included an income protection insurance clause in

its standard enterprise agreement, the effect of which is to provide a

very substantial financial benefit to the union. From 2003 to 2009 the

financial benefit to the union was over $230,000 per annum. From

98

2010 to June 2013, the financial benefit to the union was over

$680,000 per annum. From July 2013 to May 2015, the financial

benefit to the union was approximately $810,000 per annum.

260. The CFMEU does not routinely, if at all, disclose that financial benefit

to employees on whose behalf it acts in enterprise negotiations. The

inclusion of the standard clause has created an environment in which

there are inherent conflicts of interest between union officials and the

workers they represent and a substantial systemic risk of breach of

fiduciary duty.

261. In addition, the CFMEU may since 2003 have contravened s 911A of

the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), a criminal offence. This report and

all relevant materials have been referred to the Australian Securities

and Investments Commission to give consideration to whether a civil

or criminal proceeding should be commenced against the union.

VOLUME FOUR OF THIS REPORT K -

Part eight: CFMEU Queensland

Cornubia House

262. Chapter 8.1 deals with the Cornubia House case study. This involves

an allegation that in 2013 the then Secretary of the BLF QLD (which

was also a branch of the federal CFMEU), David Hanna, had received

free materials and services in 2013 for the purposes of the construction

of his home worth in the order of $150,000.

99

263. The findings are that David Hanna, as agent of the BLF, corruptly

received free goods and services from Adam Moore and Mathew

McAllum in circumstances where doing so would tend to influence

him to show favour to them personally as well as Mirvac (for whom

they worked) in relation to the BLF’s affairs. David Hanna may have

committed an offence under s 442B of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).

Appropriate referrals have been made.

264. Adam Moore and Mathew McAllum both gave free goods and services

to David Hanna with the intent that it would tend to influence David

Hanna to show favour to them and Mirvac in relation to the BLF’s

affairs. Mathew McAllum and Adam Moore may have committed an

offence under s 442BA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Appropriate

referrals have been made.

Document destruction

265. Chapter 8.2 concerns the important issue of document destruction. The

essential facts were these. At approximately 12.50pm AEST on

1 April 2014, the CFMEU was served, at its national office in

Melbourne, with the first of a number of notices to produce from the

Royal Commission requiring the production of documents. In the late

afternoon and evening of 1 April 2014, a large quantity of documents -

several tonnes at least - were removed from the Bowen Hills office of

the CFMEU QLD. During that process, all the security cameras in the

CFMEU QLD office were covered. The documents were taken in a

horse float trailer and a box trailer to the Cornubia property of the then

president of the CFMEU QLD, David Hanna. The following day an

100

attempt was made to burn the documents at the Cornubia property.

That attempt was largely unsuccessful. Two days later, on 4 April

2014, the remaining documents were loaded, along with some soil, into

a tip truck and dumped at a landfill.

266. It was found that primary responsibility for the destruction of

documents fell on Michael Ravbar, the Secretary of the CFMEU QLD.

He gave the operative orders. But David Hanna had to share the

responsibility. The conduct of Michael Ravbar and David Hanna was

done with an intention to conceal the removal and destruction of

documents which they believed were or could be relevant to the

conduct of the Commission’s future proceedings. However in light of

an ongoing police investigation no findings of possible criminal

conduct were made.

Hindmarsh

267. Chapter 8.3 deals with the Brooklyn on Brooks Project involving

Hindmarsh builders. This was another case study initially examined in

2014 but not concluded. Following a further round of submissions

findings in respect of this case study were made.

268. The CFMEU, Chad Bragdon and Jade Ingham each knew of the fact of

the order of the Fair Work Commission made on 4 April 2014, and

contravened a term of that order by organising industrial action in the

period from 4 to 14 April 2014. By so acting, they may have breached

ss 297, 300 and 302 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act

101

2009 (Cth). In addition, they may have acted in contempt of the order

of the Federal Circuit Court. Appropriate referrals have been made.

269. The Report also finds that the maximum penalties that may be imposed

on registered organisations such as the CFMEU, and their officers, for

breach of an order of the Fair Work Commission are grossly deficient.

They do not deter behaviour of the kind revealed in this case study.

Penalties should be substantially increased. An officer of a registered

organisation who deliberately defies an order of the Fair Work

Commission should be liable to punishment by a significant period of

imprisonment in addition to financial sanctions.

Part nine: CFMEU Vic

Andrew Zaf

270. Chapter 9 deals with the Andrew Zaf case study. It concerned

evidence given by Andrew Zaf, a witness from Victoria. In 2014, it

had reached a final stage, but as set out at Chapter 8.11 of the Interim

Report, shortly before it was completed (but after submissions had

been made by counsel assisting and affected parties) material came to

the attention of the Commission which required further investigation

before any concluded findings could be made.

271. In the light of the further material, counsel assisting contended that no

positive submission based on Andrew Zaf’s evidence could now be

maintained. No findings adverse to persons affected by the substance

of Andrew Zaf’s submission were open without informing affected

102

persons of the possibility of departure from what counsel assisting

urged so they might deal with the possibility. That did not happen. No

adverse findings were made.

Part ten: AWU

Cleanevent

272. Chapter 10.1 is introductory. Chapter 10.2 involves Cleanevent

Australia Pty Ltd. There are a number of issues raised by the

Cleanevent case study. The first is whether the AWU and Cleanevent

agreed to extend an enterprise agreement made under the WorkChoices

regime, thereby saving the company some $2,000,000 per year it

would otherwise have had to pay its casual workers in penalty rates

under the Award. In exchange Cleanevent paid the AWU $25,000 per

year and provided lists of ‘100 purported members’.

273. The findings are that Cesar Melhem, then State Assistant Secretary,

and the AWU may have committed an offence against s 176(1)(a) and

(b) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) by soliciting a corrupt commission.

274. Cesar Melhem also may have contravened s 285 of the Fair Work

(Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth). In procuring the payment

of the amounts received by Cleanevent, and in making directions as to

how the membership records were to be treated in relation to those

payments, Cesar Melhem was acting in the exercise of the powers or

duties of his office in relation to the financial management of the

Branch. He did so recklessly and contrary to the requirements of the

103

AWU Rules, including the rules requiring payment by members of

prescribed membership contributions. He also acted so as to expose the

AWU Vic Branch to civil penalties arising from contraventions of the

above provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act

2009 (Cth).

275. Cesar Melhem also may have contravened s 286 of the Fair Work

(Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth), in that he acted otherwise

than in good faith and for an improper purpose in falsely inflating the

membership numbers of the AWU Vic Branch at the expense of the

other branches of the AWU.

276. In relation to the payments which were recorded as membership

income in the financial statements of AWU Vic, they were not in truth

membership income. As a result, s 253(3) of the Fair Work

(Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) may have been contravened

by the AWU. That section requires that the financial statements of a

reporting unit must give a true and fair view of its financial position.

277. In relation to the inflation of membership numbers the AWU Vic

Branch failed to keep records of the members of the AWU so as to

record persons who had in fact become members. As such the AWU

may have contravened s 230 of the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth).

278. These matters have been referred to the appropriate authorities.

104

Thiess John Holland

279. Chapter 11.3 relates to Thiess John Holland (TJH). This joint venture

was responsible for the construction of the Eastlink Tunnel project in

Melbourne in 2005. The first issue is whether the AWU and the joint

venture entered into an agreement pursuant to which the joint venture

paid $100,000 a year to the AWU, disguised by false invoices.

280. The following findings are made:

(a) that there was an agreement that TJH would pay a sum of

$100,000 plus GST to the AWU each year for the duration of

the project;

(b) the genesis of the agreement was a proposal by Bill Shorten

to Stephen Sasse in late 2004 that the joint venture provide

financial support to the AWU in relation to the dedication of

an organiser or organisers to the project;

(c) that proposal was not the subject of a concluded agreement at

the time that the contract was let and Julian Rzesniowiecki

and Cesar Melhem assumed primary conduct of the

negotiations;

(d) discussions regarding financial support for the provision of an

organiser or organisers took place between Julian

Rzesniowiecki and Cesar Melhem while the negotiations for

the EBA were completed;

105

(e) at some point at around the time the 2005 EBA was finalised,

Julian Rzesniowiecki and Cesar Melhem agreed on a sum of

$100,000 per year;

(f) shortly thereafter, Julian Rzesniowiecki and Cesar Melhem

determined that the payments pursuant to the agreement

would be effected by the AWU issuing invoices to TJH

described as services that the AWU might provide to the joint

venture; and

(g) the agreement was implemented by payment of invoices

issued by the AWU, many of which were false invoices.

281. Further, the AWU and Cesar Melhem each owed fiduciary duties to

members employed by TJH. The AWU, in entering into the

arrangement and seeking payments pursuant to it, acted in a position of

actual conflict of interest and duty or where there was a real and

substantial possibility of such conflict. The AWU’s self-interest

conflicted with its fiduciary duties to the TJH employees. Cesar

Melhem advanced the interests of the AWU in circumstances where

those interests conflicted, or where there was a real and substantial

possibility of conflict, with his duties to the members of the AWU.

282. Accordingly, Cesar Melhem and Julian Rzesniowiecki may have

contravened s 83 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Cesar Melhem, Julian

Rzesniowiecki, the AWU and John Holland Pty Ltd may have

contravened s 176 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Cesar Melhem,

Julian Rzesiowiecki and the AWU may have contravened s 83 of the

Crimes Act 1958. Appropriate referrals have been made.

106

Paid education and ACI

283. Chapter 10.4 deals with the topic of paid education generally. Chapter

10.5 addresses this topic in more detail through the ACI case study.

There is no controversy that ACI paid three instalments of $160,000 to

the AWU for what was described as ‘paid education leave’. It is

difficult to understand however what precisely the ACI received in

exchange for these three payments.

284. The findings are that payments of this magnitude, made for no

consideration, would not have been made without an expectation that

the AWU would show favour to ACI in relation to its dealings with its

employees. Further, the secretive nature of the payments, the absence

of proper documentation in support of them, and the unsatisfactory

evidence of Cesar Melhem and Mike Gilhome about them all support

the inference that they were, to the knowledge of both parties,

improper. Accordingly, Cesar Melhem, and the AWU may have

committed an offence under s 176(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

Mike Gilhome may have committed an offence under s 176(2)(b) of

the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). These matters have been referred to the

appropriate authorities.

Chiquita Mushrooms

285. Chapter 10.6 deals with a case study about Chiquita Mushrooms Pty

Ltd (Chiquita). The issue is whether the Chiquita mushroom farm

agreed to pay the AWU $4,000 a month in exchange for industrial

peace. It arose in a context in which the manager of the mushroom

107

farm was shifting the workers from its workforce from employees to

labour hire.

286. The findings are that the payments conferred a direct benefit on the

AWU. They were contrary to the interests of the employees of

Chiquita because they weakened the AWU’s bargaining position in

EBA negotiations. The payments were not disclosed to Chiquita

employees. Frank Leo and the AWU may have breached their fiduciary

duties to Chiquita employees who were AWU members.

287. The arrangement, and the payments pursuant to it, tended to influence

the AWU and Frank Leo to show favour to Chiquita in relation to the

affairs of its employees. Accordingly, Chiquita offered the payments

‘corruptly’ within the meaning of s 176(2)(b) and may have

contravened that section, and Frank Leo and the AWU procured the

payments ‘corruptly’ within the meaning of s 176(1)(b) and may have

contravened that section. Appropriate referrals have been made.

Unibuilt

288. Chapter 10.7 deals with Unibuilt. It concerns contributions by, first, a

company or companies associated with Ted Lockyer and, secondly, the

AWU, of personnel employed to work on the campaign of Bill Shorten

for the 2007 Federal Election.

289. Prior to and during the campaign for his election to the Federal seat of

Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten was the National Secretary of the AWU.

The relevant people employed to work on his campaign were Lance

108

Wilson and Fiona Ward. Counsel assisting did not press for adverse

findings against Bill Shorten, Ted Lockyer or the AWU and none are

made. Counsel assisting did submit that some adverse findings should

be made in relation to the conduct of Cesar Melhem in causing the

AWU to assume the responsibility for Lance Wilson’s employment.

290. The two issues that arise in relation to Cesar Melhem’s conduct

concern: (a) his decision to allow the Victorian Branch of the AWU to

be interposed in the arrangements involving Lance Wilson in May

2007; and (b) his decision to issue a credit note in respect of the debt

owed by Unibilt/Unibuilt to the AWU. The finding is that Cesar

Melhem in engaging in this conduct, may have contravened rule 57 of

the AWU rules. These matters have been referred to the appropriate

authorities.

Winslow Constructors

291. Chapter 10.8 deals with Winslow Constructors. It concerns a long

standing arrangement between the AWU and Winslow for the payment

of membership fees by Winslow for certain employees. Issues

considered in this Chapter include whether the arrangement resulted in

false invoicing, inflation of AWU membership numbers and the

conferment by the AWU on Winslow of more favourable treatment

than it gave to at least one of Winslow’s competitors. The facts were

largely not contested. Rather the dispute concerned what should be

drawn from the facts.

109

292. The findings are that Cesar Melhem, the AWU, Dino Strano, and

Winslow may have committed offences under s 83 of the Crimes Act

1958 (Vic) in respect of the creation, issue and use of the false

invoices. It is also found that Cesar Melhem may have contravened ss

285, 286 and 287 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act

2009 (Cth) in respect of the creation and issue of the false invoices. In

addition, the AWU may have contravened s 230 of the Fair Work

(Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth). These matters have been

referred to the appropriate authorities. In addition, a referral has been

made to the Commissioner of Taxation for consideration of whether

tax deductions were properly available in respect of the payments

made pursuant to the false invoices.

Miscellaneous membership issues

293. Chapter 10.9 deals with miscellaneous membership issues including

those involving the Australian Netballers’ Association, the Australian

Jockeys’ Association and other companies such as BMD

Constructions. It considers similar arrangements to those in the

previous Chapter. In this Chapter, the arrangements considered were

those entered into by the AWU with BMD Constructions Pty Ltd, the

Australian Netball Players Association, the Australian Jockeys’

Association, Geotechnical Engineering Pty Ltd and A J Lucas Pty Ltd.

294. In relation to BMD, the findings are that AWU membership numbers

in relation to BMD employees were falsely inflated. Accordingly, the

AWU may have contravened s 230 of the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth). Further, Cesar Melhem may have

110

contravened section 83(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) because,

knowing that no training had been provided to BMD, he caused the

2010 invoice to be issued claiming payment for such training. He did

so with a view to producing a gain for the AWU in the sense that the

purpose of the invoices was to procure payments of money to the

AWU. He also may have contravened his obligations under ss 285, 286

and 287 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth).

These matters have been referred to the appropriate authorities.

295. In relation to the Australian Jockeys’ Association, the findings are that

none of the jockeys in question became members of the AWU even

though their names were recorded on the AWU membership roll and

AWU invoices were issued in relation to Victorian jockeys and were

paid by that Association. The AWU may have contravened s 230(2)

of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth). These

matters have been referred to the appropriate authorities.

296. Similarly, in relation to the Australian Netball Players Association, the

findings are that no netballers were ever members of the AWU. No

membership applications were completed and the required membership

contributions were not made. Thus, the requirements of rules 9 and 10

of the AWU rules were never satisfied. As a consequence, the AWU

may have contravened s 230 of the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth). These matters have been referred to

the appropriate authorities.

297. In relation to AJ Lucas, involving another instance of a false invoice

similar to the procedure adopted in relation to Winslow and BMD,

111

Cesar Melhem may have committed an offence under s 83 of the

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). An appropriate referral has been made.

298. In relation to Geotechnical Engineering, 18 individuals were added to

the AWU membership roll without their consent. AWU membership

numbers and membership revenue, again, were falsely inflated and, as

a result, the AWU may have contravened s 230 of the Fair Work

(Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth). An appropriate referral

has been made.

299. Chapter 10.10 deals with Downer EDI. It again involves the issuing of

what appears to be a false invoice by the AWU.

300. The findings are that the invoice in question was false, and that Tony

Sirsen, Cesar Melhem and the AWU may have contravened s 83 of the

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

Part eleven: Incolink

301. Chapter 11 considers two main issues raised by counsel assisting in

submissions. The first is whether certain Incolink funds which have

been endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation as ‘approved worker

entitlement funds’ under the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986

(Cth) are entitled to endorsement. It is concluded that they are not.

The significance of this issue is that to be an ‘approved worker

entitlement fund’ the income of the fund cannot be paid to unions and

employer organisations. In fact, substantial amounts are paid from

Incolink’s ‘approved worker entitlement funds’ to other funds that are

112

not approved and those funds then pay many millions of dollars to

union and employer organisations.

302. The second is the treatment of forfeited benefits by Incolink and

whether that treatment is consistent with Incolink’s obligations under

the Unclaimed Money Act 2008 (Vic). Over the last five years Incolink

has forfeited more than $33 million in worker entitlements. It is

concluded that Incolink’s current practices give rise to a systemic and

substantial risk of non-compliance with the Unclaimed Money Act

2008 (Vic).

Part twelve: Industry 2020

303. Chapter 12 of the Report reviews the Industry 2020 case study which

was dealt with in the Interim Report. One issue the Commission has

been considering is what Industry 2020 funds were used for, including

significant funds supplied to David Asmar.

304. In 2014, David Asmar was not available to give evidence as he was

overseas. In 2015 further attempts were made to resume and complete

these investigations, in part by having David Asmar give evidence at a

public hearing. However, he departed Australia after having been

served with the summons and was scheduled to return the day after the

day on which he was required to appear. The date for his public

hearing was changed, but the Commission was ultimately advised that

David Asmar was in Lebanon and would not be in Australia for the re-scheduled date for medical reasons. Accordingly, the examination

could not proceed.

113

VOLUME FIVE OF THIS REPORT L -

305. Volume Five of this Final Report deals with policy and law reform

issues. It is divided into the following chapters:

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 Regulation of Unions

Chapter 3 Regulation of Union Officials

Chapter 4 Corrupting Benefits

Chapter 5 Regulation of Relevant Entities

Chapter 6 Enterprise Agreements

Chapter 7 Competition Issues

Chapter 8 Building and Construction

Chapter 9 Rights of Entry

Chapter 10 Reform of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth)

306. Each Chapter deals with a number of issues, or problems, with the

existing law on the same broad theme. Following identification of the

issue or problem there is consideration of possible solutions having

careful regard to submissions received:

114

(a) in response to the Discussion Paper;

(b) in response to the Issues Papers; and

(c) from affected parties in relation to particular case studies.

307. Careful regard has also been had to the public submissions made to,

issues papers released by, and the draft and final reports of a number of

other inquiries which have been, or are being conducted, into issues

that overlap with or complement matters arising out of the

Commission’s inquiries. These inquiries include:

(a) the Competition Policy Review;60

(b) the Financial System Inquiry;61

(c) the Productivity Commission Inquiry into the Workplace

Relations Framework;62 and

(d) a number of Senate committee and other parliamentary

committee enquiries into proposed legislation in the industrial

relations area.

60 Competition Policy Review, Final Report (March 2015). 61 Financial System Inquiry, Final Report (December 2014). 62

The Australian Government Productivity Commission Inquiry into the Workplace Relations Framework Inquiry Report was handed to the Australian Government on 30 November 2015. At the time of writing this report, that Inquiry Report had not been released by the Government.

115

308. Following analysis of the various arguments, and close consideration

of various options, there are recommendations for reform.

309. A list of recommendations can be found at Appendix 1 to this Volume.

CONCLUSION M -

310. Lastly, acknowledgment and thanks are due to the many lawyers and

non-lawyers who have worked at the Commission over its term. There

were seven barristers appointed as counsel assisting: Mr J Stoljar SC,

Ms S McNaughton SC, Mr M Elliott, Mr R Scruby, Ms C Gleeson,

Ms F Roughley and Mr T Prince. The team of solicitors assisting from

MinterEllison was led by Mr J Beaton. The Office of the Royal

Commission included chief executive officers Ms J Fitzgerald (2014)

and Ms S Innes-Brown (2015), and general counsel Mr B Steenson.

For reasons of space not all of the staff and solicitors have been named.

All worked tirelessly. From the first day of its existence the

Commission operated under tight deadlines and an enormous volume

of material was gathered, assessed and prepared for hearings. The

contents of both the Interim Report and this Report are a testament to

their hard work and commitment.

116

APPENDIX 1

LAW REFORM RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are made in Volume 5 of this Report.

CHAPTER 2: REGULATION OF UNIONS

Recommendation 1

Commonwealth and State governments give consideration to adopting a national

approach to the registration, deregistration and regulation of employee and

employer organisations, with a single regulator overseeing all such organisations

throughout Australia.

Recommendation 2

State governments give consideration to the recommendations concerning the

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) with a view to

implementing, where appropriate, those recommendations in State legislation

governing State-registered organisations.

Recommendation 3

All regulatory functions of the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission

and the Fair Work Commission insofar as they apply to registered organisations

under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be transferred

117

to a new Registered Organisations Commission. The Registered Organisations

Commission should be an independent stand-alone regulator. The structure of

the Australian Securities and Investments Commission may provide a useful

legislative model.

Recommendation 4

The Commonwealth government ensure that the registered organisations

regulator is properly resourced to carry out its functions, with a separate budget

for which it is accountable.

Recommendation 5

Sections 330 and 331 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009

(Cth) be amended to allow the registered organisations regulator to make

inquiries and conduct investigations as to whether criminal offences contrary to

the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) have occurred. The

meaning of the ‘rules of a reporting unit relating to its finances or financial

administration’ be clarified to include any rules concerning officers or

employees that may have a direct or indirect effect on the finances or financial

administration of a reporting unit.

Recommendation 6

The registered organisations regulator have information-gathering and

investigative powers similar to those conferred on the Australian Securities and

Investments Commission. In particular, the registered organisations regulator

be given a general power to inspect the books and records of an organisation for

the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth).

118

Recommendation 7

Amendments be made to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009

(Cth) to amplify the existing enforcement powers of the registered organisations

regulator. In particular:

ss 336(1) and 336(2)(a) be amended to clarify that the registered (a)

organisations regulator may take action in relation to breaches of rules

by persons other than a reporting unit; and

the registered organisations regulator have a power to accept an (b)

enforceable undertaking.

Recommendation 8

Section 154D of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be

repealed and replaced with a statutory provision requiring:

all members of the committee of management of an organisation or (a)

branch, and all officers whose duties relate to the financial

management of the organisation or branch, to undertake approved

training; and

the Secretary of an organisation or branch to ensure that employees of (b)

the organisation or branch involved with the finances or financial

administration of the organisation or branch complete approved

training.

The registered organisations regulator’s power to conduct inquiries and

investigations should include contraventions of this statutory provision.

Contravention by a person of the statutory obligations should entitle the

119

registered organisation regulator to disqualify the person from acting as an

officer of an organisation or branch for a period of up to two years.

Recommendation 9

Section 141(1)(ca) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth)

be repealed. A new civil penalty provision be introduced requiring

organisations and branches to adopt, in accordance with their rules, policies

binding on all officers and employees concerning financial management and

accountability.

The required policies should include policies concerning financial decision-making, receipting of money, levels of authorisation of expenditure, credit

cards, procurement, hospitality and gifts, the establishment, operation and

governance of related entities and any other matter prescribed by regulations.

Organisations or branches should be required to review their policies every four

years and to lodge a copy of their current policies with the registered

organisations regulator.

Recommendation 10

A new division dealing with financial disclosures by ‘reporting units’ to their

members be introduced to Part 3 of Chapter 8 of the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) to replace and strengthen existing provisions

concerning financial disclosure. The regime would require ‘reporting units’ to

lodge audited financial disclosure statements with the registered organisations

regulator on discrete topics, including (a) loans, grants and donations by the

reporting unit, (b) remuneration of officers and (c) credit card expenditure.

120

Civil penalties should apply to reporting units that fail to comply with their

obligations under the regime. Further, civil penalties should also apply to

officers who knowingly or recklessly make a false statement in a financial

disclosure statement.

Recommendation 11

Officers with responsibility for ensuring compliance by a reporting unit with its

financial obligations under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009

(Cth) be subject to civil penalties if they fail to take all reasonable steps to

ensure the reporting unit complies with its financial obligations.

Recommendation 12

All reporting units be required to appoint a financial compliance officer with

responsibility for ensuring compliance by the reporting unit with its financial

obligations under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth),

regulations and reporting guidelines and the reporting unit’s financial policies

and rules concerning finances. The financial compliance officer must be

separate and independent from the Secretary. The compliance officer be subject

to a statutory obligation to report any reasonably suspected breaches to the

committee of management.

Recommendation 13

Auditors of reporting units be required to be registered with the registered

organisations regulator. A person be entitled to be registered if the person is

either (a) a registered company auditor or (b) if the registered organisations

regulator is satisfied that the person has the required accounting qualifications

and is a fit and proper person. The registered organisations regulator be

empowered to suspend or cancel registration if satisfied that the person is (a) not

121

a fit and proper person or (b) has failed to comply with the duties of an auditor

under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth).

Recommendation 14

In order to improve auditor independence:

The definition of ‘excluded auditor’ be expanded to include a broad (a)

class of individuals who may lack independence including any person

in a ‘conflict of interest situation’.

The auditor rotation requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (b)

be applied to auditors of all reporting units.

Recommendation 15

The existing civil penalty provisions for contraventions by auditors be retained.

However, the maximum penalty for an individual be increased from 60 penalty

units to 200 penalty units, with the maximum penalty for a body corporate being

1,000 penalty units.

Recommendation 16

A new civil penalty provision be introduced to the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) requiring organisations and branches to make

and keep minutes recording the proceedings and resolutions of committee of

management meetings. Documents and papers that are necessary to refer to in

order to understand the effect of the minutes also be kept. The documents be

retained for a minimum of 7 years. The minutes and associated documents be

available upon request by members of the organisation free of charge.

122

Recommendation 17

The obligation to keep financial records in s 252 of the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be amended to be made a civil penalty provision.

Recommendation 18

The categories of persons who can make a protected disclosure under s 337A(a)

of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be expanded to

include:

a former officer, employee or member of an organisation or branch; (a)

and

a person contracting for the supply of goods or services, or otherwise (b)

dealing with an organisation or branch of an organisation (or an officer

or employee of an organisation or branch on behalf of the organisation

or branch); and

an officer of employee of a person mentioned in (b). (c)

Recommendation 19

The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be amended to

require the regulatory authorities entitled to receive a protected disclosure to

investigate the disclosure within a specified period.

Recommendation 20

Section 337C of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be

repealed and replaced with a provision in similar terms to s 19 of the Public

123

Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) prohibiting reprisal action against

whistleblowers. This would lead to an increase in the existing maximum penalty

for reprisal to two years’ imprisonment, or a fine of 120 penalty units, or both.

Recommendation 21

The definition of ‘prescribed offence’ in s 212 of the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be amended so that a person convicted of an

offence against s 337C is automatically disqualified from holding office in an

organisation or branch.

Recommendation 22

Provisions similar to ss 15 and 16 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

(Cth) be enacted to enable a whistleblower who is the victim of reprisal action to

obtain a mandatory injunction, an apology or an order of reinstatement to

employment.

Recommendation 23

Section 190 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be

amended to prohibit an organisation or branch using, or allowing to be used, its

property or resources to help a candidate in an election for office in any

registered organisation or branch.

This recommendation is reflected in the model legislative provisions in

Appendix 1 of Volume 5 of the Report.

124

Recommendation 24

No recommendation is made to repeal ss 182(2), 183-186 of the Fair Work

(Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) at this time. On the assumption that

those sections remain, that Act be amended to require an organisation or branch

that has an exemption under s 186 to lodge a report with the registered

organisations regulator after the completion of an election conducted pursuant to

the exemption. The report should include details about how the election was

conducted, whether any complaints were received and how those complaints

have been addressed.

CHAPTER 3: REGULATION OF UNION OFFICIALS

Recommendation 25

The definition of ‘office’ in s 9 of Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act

2009 (Cth) be amended to include, in addition:

an office of financial compliance officer of the organisation or branch; (a)

an office of a person who makes, or participates in making, decisions (b)

that affect the whole or a substantial part, of the organisation or branch;

an office of a person who has the capacity to affect significantly the (c)

financial standing of the organisation or branch; and

an office of a person in accordance with whose instructions or wishes (d)

the members of the committee of management of the organisation or

branch are accustomed to act (excluding advice given by the person in

the proper performance of functions attaching to the person’s

125

professional capacity or their business relationship with the

organisation or branch).

Recommendation 26

Section 283 of Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be

repealed to align the statutory duties of officers of registered organisations with

their general law duties.

Recommendation 27

Section 286(1)(a) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth)

be amended by inserting the words ‘honestly and reasonably’ before the word

‘believes’.

Recommendation 28

The civil penalties for contravention of ss 285-288 of the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be substantially increased. A distinction should

be drawn between a ‘serious contravention’ and other contraventions. The

maximum penalty for a ‘serious contravention’ should be 1,200 penalty units

(currently $216,000) with no penalty for a contravention that is not a ‘serious

contravention’. No distinction should be drawn between paid officers and

volunteers. ‘Serious contravention’ should be defined as proposed in the Fair

Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No 2] (Cth).

Consideration should also be given to amending the Corporations Act 2001

(Cth) to specify the maximum penalty for breaches of directors’ duties by

reference to 1,200 penalty units rather than the fixed amount of $200,000.

126

Recommendation 29

The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be amended by

introducing a new s 290A that imposes criminal liability on officers of

registered organisations or branches who dishonestly or recklessly breach the

statutory duties imposed on them by ss 286-288 of the Fair Work Registered

Organisations Act 2009 (Cth).

The section be modelled principally on s 184 of the Corporations Act 2001

(Cth), except that the reference in s 184(1) to ‘intentionally dishonest’ should be

replaced by ‘dishonest’. The maximum penalty should be the same as that

under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), being 2,000 penalty units ($360,000) or

five years’ imprisonment, or both.

Recommendation 30

New s 293A be introduced to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act

2009 (Cth) prohibiting an organisation or a branch of an organisation (or any

related entity of the organisation or branch including any State registered

organisation or branch) from indemnifying, paying or reimbursing an officer of

the organisation or branch for any fine or civil penalty imposed on the officer

for conduct in connection with the organisation or branch.

The provision may usefully be based on ss 199A-199C of the Corporations Act

2001 (Cth). Contravention should be a criminal offence of strict liability. An

organisation that contravenes the provision should be subject to a maximum

penalty of 500 penalty units ($90,000) and every officer involved in a

contravention should be subject to a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units

($18,000). Consideration should be given to reviewing the penalties under

ss 199A and 199B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

127

Recommendation 31

Section 148B of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be

repealed and replaced with a civil penalty regime that, broadly speaking,

requires officers of registered organisations and branches of registered

organisations to disclose material personal interests that they, or their relatives,

have or acquire in relation to the affairs of the organisation or branch. Key

features of a suggested regime are set out in the body of the report.

Consideration should also be given to increasing the penalty for contravention

of s 191 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Recommendation 32

A provision similar to s 195 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) be introduced to

the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 that, in broad terms,

prevents officers of an organisation or branch who have a disclosable material

interest in a matter from being present during any deliberation, or being

involved in any decision, about the matter. The provision should be a civil

penalty provision with a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units.

Recommendation 33

New provisions, modelled on ss 236-242 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), be

introduced to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) allowing

a current or former member or current or former officer of a registered

organisation or branch of the organisation to apply to a State Supreme Court or

the Federal Court for leave to bring, or intervene in, a proceeding on behalf of a

registered organisation.

128

Recommendation 34

The provisions in Part 3 of Chapter 9 of the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations Act 2009 (Cth) (ss 297-303A) concerning breach of orders be

amended to include orders made by the Federal Circuit Court.

Recommendation 35

The maximum penalty for breach of the provisions in Part 3 of Chapter 9 of the

Fair Work (Registered Organisations Act 2009 (Cth) concerning breach of court

orders by officers and employees of registered organisations or branches be

increased to 1,200 penalty units.

Recommendation 36

The definition of ‘prescribed offence’ in s 212 of the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be amended to include an offence under a law of

the Commonwealth, a State or Territory, or another country, which is punishable

on conviction by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life or 5 years or

more.

Recommendation 37

The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be amended to make

it a criminal offence for a person who is disqualified from holding office in a

registered organisation to continue to hold an office. The offence should be an

offence of strict liability with a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units or

imprisonment for two years, or both.

129

Recommendation 38

The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be amended by

inserting a new provision giving the Federal Court jurisdiction, upon the

application of the registered organisations regulator, to disqualify a person from

holding any office in a registered organisation for a period of time the court

considers appropriate. The court should be permitted to make such an order if

the person:

has, or has been found to have, contravened a civil remedy provision of (a)

the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), or a civil penalty provision of the Fair

Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) or the Work Health

and Safety Act 2011 (Cth);

has been found liable for contempt; (b)

has been at least twice an officer of a registered organisation that has, (c)

or has been found to have, contravened a provision of the Fair Work

Act 2009 (Cth) or the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009

(Cth) or has been found liable for contempt while the person was an

officer and each time the person failed to take reasonable steps to

prevent the contravention or the contempt;

has, or has been found to have, at least twice contravened a provision (d)

of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) or the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth); or

is otherwise not a fit and proper person to hold office within a (e)

registered organisation or branch; and

130

the Court is satisfied that the disqualification is justified.

CHAPTER 4: CORRUPTING BENEFITS

Recommendation 39

The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be amended to

require reporting units to lodge an audited financial disclosure statement (see

Recommendation 10) providing details in respect of (a) loans, grants and

donations (including in-kind donations) made to reporting units in excess of

$1,000 and (b) other payments made to reporting units in excess of $10,000.

Recommendation 40

Legislation be enacted amending the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to include a

provision criminalising the giving or receiving of corrupting benefits in relation

to officers of registered organisations, with a maximum term of imprisonment of

ten years.

This recommendation is reflected in the model legislative provisions in

Appendix 1 to Volume 5 of the Report.

Recommendation 41

Legislation be enacted amending the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) making it a

criminal offence for an employer to provide, offer or promise to provide any

payment or benefit to an employee organisation or its officials. Certain

legitimate categories of payment should be permitted, subject to strict

safeguards. An equivalent criminal offence should apply to any person

soliciting, receiving or agreeing to receive a prohibited payment or benefit. A

131

two year maximum term of imprisonment should apply to the commission of

these offences.

This recommendation is reflected in the model legislative provisions in

Appendix 1 to Volume 5 of the Report.

CHAPTER 5: REGULATION OF RELEVANT ENTITIES

Recommendation 42

Consideration be given, in consultation with the Australian Accounting

Standards Board, to amending the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act

2009 (Cth) to require reporting units to prepare consolidated financial

statements, as well as separate financial statements for the reporting unit’s

controlled entities. Consideration also be given to repealing s 148C of the Fair

Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth).

Recommendation 43

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be amended to prohibit any term of a modern

award, enterprise agreement or contract of employment permitting an employer

to deduct, or requiring an employee to pay, from an employee’s salary an

amount to be paid towards an election fund.

Recommendation 44

Provisions be introduced into the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act

2009 (Cth) concerning the registration of election funds in relation to elections

for office in registered organisations or their branches. In order to be registered,

election funds should be required to meet certain minimum governance

standards, operate a separate bank account for election donations and

132

expenditures, and report annually in relation to the operation of that account.

Unregistered election funds should not be permitted to receive election

donations or make electoral expenditures in connection with elections for office

in any registered organisation or branch.

This recommendation is reflected in model legislative provisions in Appendix 1

to Volume 5 of the Report.

Recommendation 45

Legislation, either standalone or amending the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), be

enacted dealing comprehensively with the governance, financial reporting and

financial disclosures required by worker entitlement funds. The legislation

should provide for registration of worker entitlement funds with the Australian

Securities and Investments Commission, and contain a prohibition on any

person carrying on or operating an unregistered worker entitlement fund above a

certain minimum number of persons. Key recommended features of the

legislative scheme are explained at paragraphs 93 and 95 of Volume 5,

Chapter 5 of the Report.

Recommendation 46

In consequence of the enactment of the legislation recommended by

Recommendation 45, Class Order [CO 02/314] not be extended. In further

consequence, s 58PB of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (Cth) be

repealed and the fringe benefits tax exemption in s 58PA(a) be amended to refer

to registered worker entitlement funds.

133

Recommendation 47

Amendments be made to Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), or

relevant regulations, requiring specific disclosure by registered organisations of

the direct and indirect pecuniary benefits obtained by them in connection with

employee insurance products. The detail and mechanism should be a matter of

consultation. In broad terms, the provisions should require:

a branch of a registered organisation, and an officer of a branch of a (a)

registered organisation,

that arranges or promotes a particular insurance product providing (b)

cover for employees of an employer, or refers an employer to a person

who arranges or provides such a product (whether in enterprise

bargaining or otherwise),

to disclose in writing to the employer in no more than two pages the (c)

nature and quantum of all direct and indirect pecuniary benefits that the

branch or any related entity receives or expects to receive, or which are

available only to the branch’s members, from the issuer of the product,

or any arranger or promoter, or any related entity.

CHAPTER 6: ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS

Recommendation 48

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be amended to require an organisation that is a

bargaining representative to disclose all financial benefits, whether direct or

indirect, that would or could reasonably be expected to be derived by the

organisation, an officer of the organisation or a related entity as a direct or

134

indirect consequence of the operation of the terms of a proposed enterprise

agreement. A short, simple and clear disclosure document should be provided

to all employees before they vote for an enterprise agreement.

Recommendation 49

Section 194 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be amended to make unlawful any

term of an enterprise agreement requiring or permitting contributions for the

benefit of an employee to be made to any fund (other than a superannuation

fund) providing for, or for the payment of, employee entitlements, training or

welfare unless the fund is:

a registered worker entitlement fund (see Recommendation 45); or (a)

a registered charity. (b)

Recommendation 50

A new civil remedy provision be added to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

prohibiting a person from organising or taking (or threatening to organise or

take) any action, other than protected industrial action, with intent to coerce an

employer to pay amounts to a particular employee benefit fund, superannuation

fund or employee insurance scheme.

Recommendation 51

Sections 32C(6), (6A), (6B), (7) and (8) of the Superannuation Guarantee

(Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) be repealed, and all other necessary

amendments be adopted to ensure all employees have freedom of choice of

superannuation fund.

135

CHAPTER 7: COMPETITION ISSUES

Recommendation 52

The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) be amended so that the penalties

for breaches of ss 45D, 45DB, 45E and 45EA are the same as those that apply to

other provisions of Part IV of that Act.

Recommendation 53

The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) be amended to clarify that to

prove the existence of an arrangement or understanding, it is not necessary to

establish that there be communication between each of the parties to the

arrangement or understanding, merely that they hold the same understanding.

Recommendation 54

Sections 45D(1)(b), 45DA(1)(b) and 45DB(1) of the Competition and Consumer

Act 2010 (Cth) be amended to provide that those sections are contravened where

the conduct is engaged in for the purpose, or would have or be likely to have the

effect, of causing the consequence identified in those sections.

Recommendation 55

The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) be amended to provide that a

person in competition with the fourth person referred to in ss 45D or 45DA must

not knowingly engage in supply or acquisition of services to or from any third

persons referred to in those sections with knowledge of the contravention by the

first and second persons without first notifying the Australian Competition and

Consumer Commission. Contravention of the provision should be a civil

penalty provision.

136

Recommendation 56

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission give consideration to

whether its immunity policy in respect of the cartel provisions could usefully be

extended to secondary boycott conduct and conduct indirectly leading to a

secondary boycott.

Recommendation 57

The building and construction industry regulator have concurrent power with the

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to investigate and enforce

secondary boycott conduct, and conduct indirectly leading to a secondary

boycott, in contravention of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

Recommendation 58

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the building and

construction industry regulator report to the responsible Minister and publish the

results of all complaints and investigations made concerning, and all

proceedings to enforce, the secondary boycott provisions on an annual basis.

Recommendation 59

The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) be amended to make explicit

that:

an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is a (a)

contract, arrangement or understanding for the purposes of the

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth); and

137

an enterprise agreement that applies to an employer and an employee (b)

organisation under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is a contract,

arrangement or understanding that an employer has with the

organisation of employees for the purposes of s 45E of the Competition

and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

CHAPTER 8: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Recommendation 60

For the purpose of seeking to combat the culture of disregard for the law within

the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, consideration be given to

the enactment of special legislation disqualifying those officers of the

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union that Parliament considers are

not fit and proper persons from holding office in any registered organisation or

branch for a specified period.

Recommendation 61

There should continue to be a building and construction industry regulator,

separate from the Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman, with the role of

investigating and enforcing the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and other relevant

industrial laws in connection with building industry participants.

Recommendation 62

Legislation be enacted conferring the building and construction industry

regulator with compulsory investigatory and information gathering powers

equivalent to those possessed by other civil regulators. The powers set out in

the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 (Cth)

appear appropriate in this regard.

138

Recommendation 63

There should be oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman of the powers

exercised by the building and construction regulator in the manner provided for

in the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013

(Cth).

Recommendation 64

Consideration be given to redrafting the use/derivative use immunity provisions

in clauses 102 and 104 of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving

Productivity) Bill 2013 (Cth) to provide protections equivalent to those available

in relation to the powers exercised by the Australian Securities and Investments

Commission.

Recommendation 65

The building and construction industry regulator continue to investigate and

enforce the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and other existing designated building

laws. The power of the building and construction industry regulator to

commence and maintain enforcement proceedings should not be constrained

according to whether any other proceedings in respect of the same conduct have

been settled. Accordingly, ss 73 and 73A of the Fair Work (Building Industry)

Act 2012 (Cth) should be repealed.

Recommendation 66

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be amended:

to increase the maximum penalties for contraventions of ss 343(1), 348 (a)

and 355 (coercion) and ss 417(1) and 421(1) (prohibited industrial

139

action) to 1,000 penalty units for a contravention by a body corporate

and 200 penalty units otherwise; and

to provide that picketing by employees or employee associations is (b)

‘industrial action’, and to deal specifically with the consequences of

industrially motivated pickets.

CHAPTER 9: RIGHTS OF ENTRY

Recommendation 67

The civil penalties for contravention of Part 3-4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

be increased. The maximum penalty be increased to 1,000 penalty units

(currently $180,000).

The maximum penalty for contravention of Part 7 of the Work Health and Safety

Act 2011 (Cth) be set at $180,000. Consideration also be given to expressing

penalties in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) in terms of penalty units

rather than dollar amounts.

Recommendation 68

Section 513 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be amended to include additional

permit qualification matters. The additional permit qualification matters are set

out in the model legislative provisions in Appendix 1 to Volume 5 of the Report.

Recommendation 69

A new provision be inserted into Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) which requires

permit holders to complete approved right of entry training annually in relation

to the rights and responsibilities of permit holder.

140

This recommendation is reflected in the model legislative provisions in

Appendix 1 to Volume 5 of the Report.

Recommendation 70

A new provision 512A be inserted into the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) which

creates an obligation on both a registered organisation and an applicant for a

right of entry permit to disclose the permit qualification matters. Significant

penalties should be imposed for failing to comply with this section.

This recommendation is reflected in the model legislative provisions in

Appendix 1 to Volume 5 of the Report.

Recommendation 71

Section 510 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be amended so that it requires a

right of entry permit to be suspended or revoked by the Fair Work Commission

if:

an official has failed to complete approved training; or (a)

a new permit qualification matter has arisen which means the official is (b)

no longer a fit and proper person.

This recommendation is reflected in the model legislative provisions in

Appendix 1 to Volume 5 of the Report.

Recommendation 72

Section 515 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be amended by inserting at the end

of subsection (1) the words ‘to a fit and proper person’.

141

Recommendation 73

Section 119 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) and the equivalent

provisions of the equivalent State Acts be repealed and replaced with new

ss 119 and 119A which provide that prior written notice of entry is to be

provided except where the permit holder has a reasonable concern that (a) there

has been or is contravention of the Act and (b) that contravention gives rise to a

‘serious risk to the health or safety of a person emanating from an immediate or

imminent exposure to a hazard’.

This recommendation is reflected in the model legislative provisions in

Appendix 1 to Volume 5 of the Report.

Recommendation 74

The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) be amended so as to make it clear

that the burden of proving that a permit holder has a suspicion that is reasonable

for the purposes of s 117(2) or a concern that is reasonable for the purposes of

s 119A lies with the person asserting that fact.

Recommendation 75

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) and

the equivalent State Acts be amended to prohibit the exercise of rights of entry

by more than two permit holders of the same organisation on the one workplace

at the same time.

Recommendation 76

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be amended so that permit holders exercising

rights under s 482 or s 483 of that Act must leave a site within a reasonable time

142

if requested to do so by a Fair Work Inspector or Fair Work Building Industry

Inspector who is on the site. Further, the Work Health and Safety Act 2011

(Cth) and equivalent State Acts be amended so that permit holders exercising

rights under those Acts must leave a site within a reasonable time if requested to

do so by an inspector who is on the site.

Consequential amendments be made to:

confer powers on Fair Work Inspectors, Fair Work Building Industry (a)

Inspectors and inspectors under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011

(Cth) to make the above requests; and

create civil penalty offences for failure to comply with such requests. (b)

CHAPTER 10: ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 (CTH)

Recommendation 77

The Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) be amended to dispense with the

requirement for personal service of a summons or notice to produce in

circumstances where:

a solicitor accepts service on behalf of the addressee; (a)

the addressee agrees to an alternative method of service; or (b)

(in relation to a notice to produce only) the addressee has been served (c)

with a notice to produce previously by the Royal Commission in

question, whether that notice was effected personally or otherwise.

143

Recommendation 78

The Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) be amended to increase the penalties for

a failure to comply with a summons to attend, a failure to comply with a notice

to produce, a failure to be sworn or answer questions, and a failure or refusal to

provide documents to at least a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or

a fine of 120 penalty units, or both.

Recommendation 79

The provisions relating to the reception and use of surveillance device evidence

in the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth) in relation to Royal Commissions be

reviewed.

144

APPENDIX 2

REFERRALS

Pursuant to s 6P of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) and every other

enabling power referrals have been made in respect of the following persons or

entities:

1. James McGiveron to the General Manager of the Fair Work

Commission in order that consideration may be given to whether to

institute proceedings against him for breaches of his duties as an

officer contrary to ss 285, 286 and/or 287 of the Fair Work (Registered

Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) (FW(RO) Act) (Volume 2, Chapter 2).

2. Richard Burton to the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission

in order that consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for breaches of his duties as an officer

contrary to ss 285, 286 and/or 287 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume 2,

Chapter 2).

3. Dean Mighell to the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission in

order that consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for breaches of his duties as an officer

contrary to ss 286 and/or 287 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume 2,

Chapter 3.1).

145

4. Gary Carruthers to the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission

in order that consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for breaches of his duties as an officer

contrary to ss 286 and/or 287 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume 2,

Chapter 3.1).

5. Danielle O’Brien to the New South Wales Commissioner of Police and

the Director of Public Prosecutions of New South Wales in order that

consideration may be given to whether she should be charged with and

prosecuted for larceny and/or fraud contrary to ss 117, 156 and/or

192E of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Volume 2, Chapter 4).

6. Nicklouse (Nick) Belan, in relation to the misuse of credit cards, to the:

(a) New South Wales Commissioner of Police and the Director

of Public Prosecutions of New South Wales in order that

consideration may be given to the institution of proceedings

against him in relation to possible offences of larceny and/or

fraud contrary to ss 117, 156 and/or 192E of the Crimes Act

1900 (NSW) (Volume 2, Chapter 4);

(b) Executive Director of New South Wales Industrial Relations

so that consideration may be given to the institution of

proceedings against him in relation to possible offences for

breaches of his duties as an officer in relation to the use of

credit cards contrary to ss 267 and/or 268 of the Industrial

Relations Act 1996 (NSW) (Volume 2, Chapter 4); and

(c) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission in order that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

146

proceedings against him for breaches of his duties as an

officer contrary to ss 285, 286 and/or 287 of the FW(RO) Act

(Volume 2, Chapter 4).

7. Wayne Meaney to the:

(a) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission in order that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for breaches of his duties as an

officer in relation to the negotiation of Derrack Belan’s

severance terms contrary to ss 285, 286 and 287 of the

FW(RO) Act (Volume 2, Chapter 4);

(b) New South Wales Commissioner of Police, the Director of

Public Prosecutions of New South Wales and the Executive

Director of New South Wales Industrial Relations so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him in respect of possible offences for

breaches of his duties as an officer in relation to negotiation

of severance terms with Darack Belan contrary to s 268 of the

Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) (Volume 2, Chapter 4);

(c) New South Wales Commissioner of Police for further

investigation of possible offences of larceny and/or fraud in

relation to the use of credit cards contrary to ss 117, 156 and

or 192E Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Volume 2, Chapter 4);

(d) Executive Director of New South Wales Industrial Relations

for further investigation of possible offences in relation to

breaches of his duties as an officer in relation to the use of

147

credit cards contrary to ss 267 and 268 of the Industrial

Relations Act 1996 (NSW) (Volume 2, Chapter 4);

(e) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission in order that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for breaches of his duties as an

officer in relation to the use of credit cards contrary to

ss 285, 286 and/or 287 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume 2,

Chapter 4); and

(f) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission in order that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for pecuniary penalty orders in

relation to possible breaches of his duties as an officer in

relation to the general governance of the union contrary to s

285 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume 2, Chapter 4).

8. Darack (Derrick) Belan to the:

(a) New South Wales Commissioner of Police, for further

investigation of possible offences of larceny and/or fraud in

relation to the use of credit cards contrary to ss 117, 156

and/or 192E of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Volume 2,

Chapter 4);

(b) Executive Director of New South Wales Industrial Relations

for further investigation of possible offences in relation to

breaches of his duties as an officer in relation to the use of

credit cards contrary to ss 267 and 268 of the Industrial

Relations Act 1996 (NSW) (Volume 2, Chapter 4);

148

(c) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission in order that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for breaches of his duties as an

officer in relation to the use of credit cards contrary to ss 285,

286 and/or 287 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume 2, Chapter 4);

(d) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission in order that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for breaches of his duties as an

officer in relation to the arrangement with Paul Gibson

contrary to ss 285, 286 and/or 287 of the FW(RO) Act

(Volume 2, Chapter 4);

(e) Executive Director of New South Wales Industrial Relations

so that consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings in respect of possible offences in relation to

breaches of his duties as an officer in relation to the

arrangement with Paul Gibson contrary to s 268 of the

Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) (Volume 2, Chapter 4).

(f) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission in order that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for breaches of his duties as an

officer in relation to the negotiation of his severance terms

contrary to ss 285, 286 and 287 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume

2, Chapter 4);

(g) New South Wales Commissioner of Police, the Director of

Public Prosecutions of New South Wales and the Executive

Director of New South Wales Industrial Relations so that

149

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him in respect of possible offences for

breaches of his duties as an officer in relation to negotiation

of his severance terms contrary to s 268 of the Industrial

Relations Act 1996 (NSW) (Volume 2, Chapter 4); and

(h) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission in order that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for pecuniary penalty orders in

relation to possible breaches of his duties as an officer in

relation to the general governance of the union contrary to s

285 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume 2, Chapter 4).

9. Marilyn Issanchon to the General Manager of the Fair Work

Commission in order that consideration may be given to whether to

institute proceedings against her for pecuniary penalty orders in

relation to possible breaches of her duties as an officer contrary to s

285 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume 2, Chapter 4).

10. Katherine Jackson to the:

(a) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether she should be charged with and prosecuted

for obtaining property and financial advantage by deception

contrary to ss 81 and 82 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Cth)

(Volume 2, Chapter 5.1).

(b) Victorian Commissioner of Police for further investigation as

to whether she may have given false or misleading evidence

150

in contravention of 6H of the Royal Commission Act 1902

(Cth) (Volume 2, Chapter 5.2).

(c) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission so that

consideration can be given to the General Manager

commencing proceedings against Katherine Jackson for

pecuniary penalty orders for her contraventions of s 287

(Volume 2, Chapter 5.2).

11. Peter Mylan to the:

(a) Executive Director of NSW Industrial Relations so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him in relation to possible offences for

breaches of his duties as an officer contrary to s 267 of the

Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) (Volume 2, Chapter 5.2,

Appendix G); and

(b) Director of Public Prosecutions of New South Wales and the

New South Wales Commissioner of police in order that

consideration may be given to whether he should be charged

with and prosecuted for intentionally deceiving members by

false or misleading statement contrary to s 192H of the

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Volume 2, Chapter 5.2, Appendix

G).

(c) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for a breach of his duties as an

151

officer contrary to ss 285, 286 and 287 of the FW(RO) Act

(Volume 2, Chapter 5.2, Appendix G).

12. Dean Hall to the Director-General, Chief Minister, Treasury and

Economic Development Directorate in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted for

intimidating an inspector contrary to s 190 of the Work, Health and

Safety Act 2011 (ACT) (Volume 3, Chapter 6.3).

13. Johnny Lomax to:

(a) the Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate

in order that consideration may be given to whether to

institute proceedings against him in respect of Anthony

Costanzo (or CPS) for coercion and inducing membership

action contrary to ss 348 and 350 of the Fair Work Act 2009

(Cth) (FW Act) (Volume 3, Chapter 6.4); and

(b) the Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate

in order that consideration may be given to whether to

institute proceedings against him in respect of unlawfully

taking adverse action against a person for not becoming a

union member and coercion contrary to ss 346 and 348 of the

FW Act (Volume 3, Chapter 6.4).

14. Jason O’Mara to the Director of the Fair Work Building Industry

Inspectorate in order that consideration may be given to whether to

institute proceedings against him for coercion and inducing

membership action contrary to ss 348 and 350 of the FW Act (Volume

3, Chapter 6.4).

152

15. Anthony Vitler to the Director of the Fair Work Building Industry

Inspectorate in order that consideration may be given to whether to

institute proceedings against him for inducing membership action

contrary to s 350 of the FW Act (Volume 3, Chapter 6.4).

16. Construction Charitable Works Limited (CCW) to the Australian

Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission in order that consideration

may be given to whether CCW’s registration as a charity should be

revoked (Volume 3, Chapter 6.6).

17. In relation to matters arising in the case study concerning Creative

Safety Initiatives and Construction Charitable Works in respect of

declarations made by the Canberra Tradesmen’s Union Club and the

Woden Tradesmen’s Union Club, to the Australian Federal Police and

the ACT Gaming and Racing Commission to investigate the

commission of possible criminal offences against the Criminal Code

(ACT) and s 65 of the Taxation Administration Act 1999 (ACT) in

relation to matters concerning the Gaming Machine Act 2004 (ACT)

(Volume 3, Chapter 6.6).

18. In relation to matters arising in the case study concerning Creative

Safety Initiatives and Construction Charitable Works, to the

Government of the Australian Capital Territory for consideration of

whether express amendments should be made to the Gaming Machine

Act 2004 (ACT) so that ‘community contributions’ cannot be made by

a registered club to an entity related to that club (Volume 3, Chapter

6.6).

19. Brian Parker to the:

153

(a) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in order that

consideration may be given to whether he should be charged

with and prosecuted for intentionally giving false or

misleading evidence contrary to s 6H of the Royal

Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) (Volume 3, Chapter 7.1); and

(b) Australian Securities and Investments Commission in order

that consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for breaches of his duties as an

officer contrary to ss 182 and 183 of the Corporations Act

2001 (Cth) (Volume 3, Chapter 7.1).

20. Lisa Zanatta to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission

in order that consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against her for breaches of her duties as an officer contrary

to ss 182 and 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Volume 3,

Chapter 7.1).

21. Maria Butera to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission

in order that consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against her for breaches of her duties as an officer contrary

to ss 182 and 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Volume 3,

Chapter 7.1).

22. David Atkin to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission

in order that consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for breaches of his duties as an officer

contrary to ss 182 and 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

(Volume 3, Chapter 7.1).

154

23. George Alex to the New South Wales Commissioner of Police and the

Director of Public Prosecutions of New South Wales in order that

consideration may be given to whether he should be charged with and

prosecuted in relation to corrupt commission offences contrary to

s 249B of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Volume 3, Chapter 7.2).

24. Darren Greenfield to the New South Wales Commissioner of Police

and the Director of Public Prosecutions of New South Wales in order

that consideration may be given to whether he should be charged with

and prosecuted in relation to corrupt commission offences contrary to s

249B of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Volume 3, Chapter 7.2).

25. Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union - New South Wales

(CFMEU NSW ) to the:

(a) New South Wales Minister for Innovation and Better

Regulation in order that consideration may be given to

whether an inquiry should be conducted pursuant to Division

1 of Part 3 of the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991 (NSW)

into all of the CFMEU NSW’s practices concerning charitable

fundraising (Volume 3, Chapter 7.3); and

(b) Australian Securities and Investments Commission so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against it for carrying on a financial services

business without a licence contrary to s 911A of the

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Volume 3, Chapter 7.6).

26. Steve Dixon to the New South Wales Commissioner of Police and the

Director of Public Prosecutions of New South Wales in order that

155

consideration may be given to whether he should be charged with and

prosecuted in relation to a corrupt commission offence contrary to s

249B(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Volume 3, Chapter 7.4).

27. Michael Deegan to the New South Wales Commissioner of Police and

the Director of Public Prosecutions of New South Wales in order that

consideration may be given to whether he should be charged with and

prosecuted in relation to a corrupt commission offence contrary to s

249B(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Volume 3, Chapter 7.4).

28. Andrew Ferguson to the:

(a) New South Wales Commissioner of Police and the Director

of Public Prosecutions of New South Wales in order that

consideration may be given to whether he should be charged

with and prosecuted for aiding, abetting, counselling or

procuring Steve Dixon’s possible offence contrary to s 249F

of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Volume 3, Chapter 7.4); and

(b) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him in relation to his breaches of his

duties as an officer contrary to s 286 of Sch 1B of the

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (Volume 3, Chapter 7.5).

29. Tony Papa to the New South Wales Commissioner of Police and the

Director of Public Prosecutions of New South Wales in order that

consideration may be given to whether he should be charged with and

prosecuted for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring Steve Dixon’s

156

possible offence contrary to s 249F of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

(Volume 3, Chapter 7.4).

30. Trevor Sharp to the New South Wales Commissioner of Police and the

Director of Public Prosecutions of New South Wales in order that

consideration may be given to whether he should be charged with and

prosecuted for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring Steve Dixon’s

possible offence contrary to s 249F of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

(Volume 3, Chapter 7.4).

31. Peter McClelland to the General Manager of the Fair Work

Commission so that consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him in relation to his breaches of his duties as an

officer contrary to s 286 of Sch 1B of the Workplace Relations Act

1996 (Cth) (Volume 3, Chapter 7.5).

32. David Hanna to the Director of Public Prosecutions of Queensland and

the Queensland Commissioner of Police in order that consideration

may be given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to a corrupt commission offence contrary to s 442B of the

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (Volume 4, Chapter 8.1).

33. Mathew McAllum to the Director of Public Prosecutions of

Queensland and the Queensland Commissioner of Police in order that

consideration may be given to whether he should be charged with and

prosecuted in relation to a corrupt commission offence contrary to s

442BA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (Volume 4, Chapter 8.1).

34. Adam Moore to the Director of Public Prosecutions of Queensland and

the Queensland Commissioner of Police in order that consideration

157

may be given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to a corrupt commission offence contrary to s 442BA of the

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (Volume 4, Chapter 8.1).

35. Cesar Melham to the:

(a) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible corrupt commission offences concerning

Cleanevent Pty Ltd contrary to s 176(1)(a) and/or (b) of the

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.2);

(b) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for breaching his duties as an officer

in relation to his dealings with Cleanevent Pty Ltd contrary to

ss 285 and 286 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume 4, Chapter 10.2);

(c) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible corrupt commission offences concerning

Thiess John Holland Pty Ltd contrary to s 176 of the Crimes

Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.3);

(d) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible false accounting offences concerning

158

Thiess John Holland contrary to s 83 of the Crimes Act 1958

(Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.3);

(e) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged and prosecuted in

relation to possible corrupt commission offences concerning

ACI Operations Pty Ltd contrary to s 176(1)(b) of the Crimes

Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.5);

(f) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible false accounting offences contrary to s 83

of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.8);

(g) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for breaching his duties as an officer

in respect of his dealings with Winslow Constructors Pty Ltd

contrary to ss 285, 286 and 287 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume

4, Chapter 10.8);

(h) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible false accounting offences concerning

BMD Constructions Pty Ltd contrary to s 83 of the Crimes

Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.9);

159

(i) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against him for breaching his duties as an officer

concerning BMD Constructions Pty Ltd contrary to ss 285,

286 and 287 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume 4, Chapter 10.9);

and

(j) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible false accounting offences concerning A J

Lucas Pty Ltd contrary to s 83 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)

(Volume 4, Chapter 10.9); and

(k) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible false accounting offences concerning

Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd, contrary to s 83 of

the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.10).

36. AWU to the:

(a) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether it should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible corrupt commission offences concerning

Cleanevent Pty Ltd contrary to s 176(1)(a) and/or (b) of the

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.2);

160

(b) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against it for failing to maintain financial

statements giving a true and fair view of its financial position

in relation to membership arrangements for employees of

Cleanevent Pty Ltd contrary to s 253(3) of the FW(RO) Act

(Volume 4, Chapter 10.2);

(c) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against it for failing to maintain an accurate

register of members in relation to membership arrangements

for employees of Cleanevent Pty Ltd contrary to s 230 of the

FW(RO) Act (Volume 4, Chapter 10.2);

(d) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether it should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible corrupt commission offences concerning

Thiess John Holland Pty Ltd, contrary to s 176 of the Crimes

Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.3);

(e) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether it should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible false accounting offences concerning

Thiess John Holland Pty Ltd, contrary to s 83 of the Crimes

Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.3);

161

(f) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether it should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible corrupt commission offences concerning

ACI Operations Pty Ltd contrary to s 176(1)(b) of the Crimes

Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.5);

(g) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether it should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible corrupt commissions offences concerning

Chiquita Mushrooms Pty Ltd contrary to s 176(1)(b) of the

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.6);

(h) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether it should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible false accounting offences concerning

Winslow Constructors Pty Ltd contrary to s 83 of the Crimes

Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.8);

(i) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against it for failing to maintain an accurate

register of members in relation to employees of Winslow

Constructors Pty Ltd contrary to s 230 of the FW(RO) Act

(Volume 4, Chapter 10.8);

(j) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

162

proceedings against it for failing to maintain an accurate

register of members concerning BMD Constructions Pty Ltd

contrary to s 230 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume 4, Chapter

10.9);

(k) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against it for failing to maintain an accurate

register of members concerning the Australian Jockeys’

Association contrary to s 230 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume 4,

Chapter 10.9);

(l) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against it for failing to maintain an accurate

register of members concerning Geotechnical Engineering Pty

Ltd contrary to s 230 of the FW(RO) Act (Volume 4, Chapter

10.9);

(m) General Manager of the Fair Work Commission so that

consideration may be given to whether to institute

proceedings against it for failing to maintain an accurate

register of members concerning the Australian Netball

Players Association contrary to s 230 of the FW(RO) Act

(Volume 4, Chapter 10.9); and

(n) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether it should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible false accounting offences concerning

163

Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd, contrary to s 83 of

the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.10).

37. Julian Rzesiowiecki to the:

(a) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible corrupt commission offences contrary to s

176 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.3);

and

(b) Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible false accounting offences, contrary to s 83

of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.3).

38. John Holland Pty Ltd to the Victorian Commissioner of Police and

Director of Public Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration

may be given to whether it should be charged with and prosecuted in

relation to possible corrupt commissions offences contrary to s 176 of

the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.3).

39. Mike Gilhome to the Victorian Commissioner of Police and the

Director of Public Prosecutions so that consideration may be given to

whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in relation to

possible corrupt commission offences contrary to s 176(2)(b) of the

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.5).

164

40. Chiquita Mushrooms Pty Ltd to the Victorian Commissioner of Police

and Director of Public Prosecutions of Victoria in order that

consideration may be given to whether it should be charged with and

prosecuted in relation to possible corrupt commission offences

contrary to s 176(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4,

Chapter 10.6).

41. Frank Leo to the Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of

Public Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in relation

to possible corrupt commission offences contrary to s 176(1)(b) of the

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.6);

42. Dino Strano to the Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of

Public Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in relation

to possible false accounting offences contrary to s 83 of the Crimes Act

1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.8).

43. Peter Smoljko to the Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of

Public Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted in relation

to possible false accounting offences contrary to s 83 of the Crimes Act

1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.8).

44. Winslow Constructors Pty Ltd to:

(a) the Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of Public

Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether it should be charged with and prosecuted in

165

relation to possible false accounting offences contrary to s 83

of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Volume 4, Chapter 10.8); and

(b) the Commissioner of Taxation for consideration of whether

tax deductions were properly available in respect of payments

made pursuant to false invoices (Volume 4, Chapter 10.8).

45. Tony Sirsen to the Victorian Commissioner of Police and Director of

Public Prosecutions of Victoria in order that consideration may be

given to whether he should be charged with and prosecuted for false

accounting offences contrary to s 83 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)

(Volume 4, Chapter 10.10).

166

APPENDIX 3 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 13 MARCH 2014 BY THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL

167

168

169

170

171

172

APPENDIX 4 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 30 OCTOBER 2014 BY THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL

173

OPC60884 - A Page 1

ENTERED ON RECORD by me in Register of Patents No. 49 , page 27 , on 30 October 2014

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth:

TO

The Honourable John Dyson Heydon AC QC

GREETING

WHEREAS We, by Our Letters Patent issued in Our name by Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, appointed you to be a Commission of inquiry, required and authorised you to inquire into certain matters, and required you to submit to Our Governor-General a report of the results of your inquiry, and your recommendations, not later than 31 December 2014.

AND it is desired to amend Our Letters Patent.

NOW THEREFORE We do, by these Our Letters Patent issued in Our name by Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia on the advice of the Federal Executive Council and under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and every other enabling power, amend the Letters Patent issued to you:

(a) by inserting before paragraph (j) of the Letters Patent, the paragraph:

“(ia) any criminal or otherwise unlawful act or omission undertaken for the purpose of facilitating or concealing any conduct or matter mentioned in paragraphs (g) to (i);” and

(b) by omitting from paragraph (j) of the Letters Patent “(a) to (i)” and substituting “(a) to (ia)”; and

(c) by omitting from paragraph (o) of the Letters Patent “31 December 2014” and substituting “31 December 2015”.

174

OPC60884 - A Page 2

IN WITNESS, We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent.

WITNESS General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Ret’d), Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Dated 2014

By His Excellency’s Command

175

176

APPENDIX 5 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 9 APRIL 2014 BY THE GOVERNOR OF NEW SOUTH WALES

177

178

179

180

181

182

APPENDIX 6 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 14 JANUARY 2015 BY THE GOVERNOR OF NEW SOUTH WALES

183

184

185

186

187

188

APPENDIX 7 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 27 MARCH 2014 BY THE GOVERNOR OF QUEENSLAND

189

190

191

192

193

194

APPENDIX 8 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 18 DECEMBER 2014 BY THE GOVERNOR OF QUEENSLAND

195

196

APPENDIX 9 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 22 MAY 2014 BY THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

197

198

199

200

201

202

APPENDIX 10 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 18 JUNE 2015 BY THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

203

204

APPENDIX 11 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 13 MAY 2014 BY THE GOVERNOR OF TASMANIA

205

206

207

208

209

210

APPENDIX 12 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 10 FEBRUARY 2015 BY THE GOVERNOR OF TASMANIA

211

212

APPENDIX 13 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 15 APRIL 2014 BY THE GOVERNOR OF VICTORIA

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

APPENDIX 14 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 3 JUNE 2015 BY THE GOVERNOR OF VICTORIA

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

APPENDIX 15 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 8 JULY 2014 BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

229

230

231

232

233

234

APPENDIX 16 - LETTERS PATENT ISSUED ON 29 APRIL 2015 BY THE GOVERNOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

235

236

APPENDIX 17 - PRACTICE DIRECTION 1

237

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *s*

*

PRACTICE DIRECTION 1

General

*s*‰ *äá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*ÖëêïãÜáîï*ñäÉñ*ãñ*ãï*ÜáïãîÉÑéá*ñë*áïñÉÑéãïä* íîëÖáÜóîáï*àëî*ñäá*

ëîÜáîéõ*ÖëêÜóÖñ*ëà*ñäá*ãêìóãîõ*ñäÉñ*Éîá*éãçáéõ*ñë*Éïïãïñ*ãê*ñäá *áààãÖãáêñ*ÜãïÖäÉîâá*

ëà*äãï*ñÉïç*‰***

*

*t*‰ *äáïá*íîÉÖñãÖá*ÜãîáÖñãëêï*Éîá*ãêñáêÜáÜ*ñë*íîëòãÜá*âóãÜÉêÖá*ñë *Ééé*íáîïëêï*Éï*ñë*

ñäá*íîëÖáÜóîáï*ñäÉñ*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*ôãéé*ÉÜëíñ*ãê*ñäá*ëîÜãêÉîõ *Öëóîïá*·*ÉêÜ*

âãòá*ãêñáîáïñáÜ*íáîïëêï*É*àÉãî*ëííëîñóêãñõ*ñë*óêÜáîïñÉêÜ*ñäá*íîÉÖñãÖáï*ñäÉñ*ñäá*

*ëèèãïïãëêáî* áöíáÖñï* ñë* àëééëô* ÉêÜ* Ñá* àëééëôáÜ* ãê* ñäá* ëîÜãêÉîõ* Öëóîïá* ëà*

áòáêñï*‰*

*

*u*‰ *äáîá*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*ñäãêçï*ãñ*ÉííîëíîãÉñá*·*äá*èÉõ*Üãïíáêïá *ôãñä*ëî*òÉîõ*

ñäáïá*íîÉÖñãÖáï*ÉêÜ*íîëÖáÜóîáï*·*ÉêÜ*Éêõ*ëñäáî*íîÉÖñãÖáï*ëî*íîëÖ áÜóîáï*ñäÉñ*Éîá*

ïóÑïáìóáêñéõ*íóÑéãïäáÜ*ëî*ÉÜëíñáÜ*‰*

*

*v*‰ *ê*ñäáïá*íîÉÖñãÖá*ÜãîáÖñãëêï*·*îáàáîáêÖáï*ñë*ñäá**Ú*Öñ*Û*Éîá*îáà áîáêÖáï*ñë*ñäá* Royal

Commission Act *s*{*r*t****ñä***‰*

*

*w*‰ *äáîá*ñäáïá*íîÉÖñãÖá*ÜãîáÖñãëêï*íîëòãÜá*àëî*É*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ëî*ëñä áî*ñäãêâ*ñë*Ñá*

àãéáÜ* ôãñä* ñäá* *ààãÖá* ëà* ñäá* *ëèèãïïãëê*·* ñäÉñ* èÉõ* Ñá* Üëêá* Ñõ* íáîïëêÉééõ*

Üáéãòáîãêâ*ñäá*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ëî*ñäãêâ*ñë*ñäá**ààãÖá*ëà*ñäá**ëèèãïïãë ê*·*Ñõ*áèÉãé*

ÉÜÜîáïïáÜ*ñë* *áâÉé*‰*îÉÜá*êãëê*7Éâ*‰âëò*䃗 *·*ëî*Ñõ*íëïñ*‰***äáîá*É*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ëî*

ñäãêâ*ãï*ñë*Ñá*àãéáÜ*Ñõ*É*ïíáÖãàãáÜ*ñãèá*ëî*ÜÉñá*ÉêÜ*É*íáîïëê*ã êñáêÜï*ñë*àãéá*Ñõ*

íëïñ*·*ñäá*íáîïëê*èóïñ*áêïóîá*ñäá*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ëî*ñäãêâ*ãï*íëïñáÜ*ãê*ïóààãÖãáêñ*ñãèá*

àëî*ãñ*ñë*Ñá*îáÖáãòáÜ*Ñõ*ñäá**ààãÖá*ëà*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*Ñáàëîá*ñä Éñ*ïíáÖãàãáÜ*ñãèá*

ëî*ÜÉñá*‰*

*

238

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *t*

*

Public hearing dates and times

*

*x*‰ *äá*óïóÉé*äáÉîãêâ*äëóîï*àëî*íóÑéãÖ*äáÉîãêâï*ôãéé*Ñá*àîëè**s*r*‰*r*rÉè*ñë**s*‰*r*ríè*

ÉêÜ*àîëè**t*‰*r*ríè*ñë**v*‰*r*ríè*‰*

*

*y*‰ *áñÉãéï*ëà*ñäá*íóÑéãÖ*äáÉîãêâï*ÉîîÉêâáÜ*àîëè*ñãèá*ñë*ñãèá*ÖÉê *Ñá*ëÑñÉãêáÜ*Ñõ*

ÖÉééãêâ* ñäá* *ëèèãïïãëê*Ôï* äëñéãêá* *s*z*r*r* *t*t*s* *t*v*w* ëî* àîëè* ñäá* *ëèèã ïïãëê*Ôï*

ôáÑïãñá*Éñ* www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au.*

* *z*‰ *äá* *ëèèãïïãëê* ÉÖÖáíñï* êë* ëÑéãâÉñãëê* ñë* êëñãàõ* íáîïëêï*·* ëîâÉê ãïÉñãëêï* ëî*

ÖëîíëîÉñãëêï* **äáîáãêÉàñáî* îáàáîîáÜ* ñë* Éï* *Úíáîïëêï*Û*** ôãñä* Éóñäëî ãïÉñãëê* ñë*

ÉííáÉî*·*ëî*ëñäáî*ãêñáîáïñáÜ*íÉîñãáï*·*ëà*ñäá*ñãèáï*ÉêÜ*íéÉÖáï*ëà *ãñï*äáÉîãêâï*‰***

*

*{*‰ *ëôáòáî* É* íáîïëê* ôäë*·* ãê* ñäá* ëíãêãëê* ëà* *ëóêïáé* *ïïãïñãêâ*·* èÉõ* Ñá*

ïóÑïñÉêñãÉééõ* ÉêÜ* ÜãîáÖñéõ* ãêñáîáïñáÜ* ãê* áòãÜáêÖá* ñë* Ñá* íîëÜóÖáÜ* ñë* ñäá*

*ëèèãïïãëê* Éñ* É* äáÉîãêâ* ôãéé*·* ãà* îáÉïëêÉÑéõ* íëïïãÑéá* ÉêÜ* íîÉÖñãÖÉÑéá*·* Ñá*

êëñãàãáÜ* ãê* ÉÜòÉêÖá* ñäÉñ* ãñ* ãï* ãêñáêÜáÜ* ñë* íîëÜóÖá* ñäÉñ* áòãÜáêÖ á* ñë* ñäá*

*ëèèãïïãëê*‰*

Authorisation to appear

*

To represent a witness while giving evidence

*s*r*‰ *äáîá* É* éáâÉé* íîÉÖñãñãëêáî* ïááçï* ÉóñäëîãïÉñãëê* ñë* ÉííáÉî* Ñáà ëîá* ñäá*

*ëèèãïïãëê*àëî*ñäá*éãèãñáÜ*íóîíëïá*ëà*îáíîáïáêñãêâ*Éê*ãêÜãòãÜóÉ é*ôäãéá*ñäÉñ*

ãêÜãòãÜóÉé*ãï*âãòãêâ*áòãÜáêÖá*Éñ*É*íóÑéãÖ*äáÉîãêâ*ëà*ñäá**ëèèãï ïãëê*„*

*

* *É* * ïóÖä* Éê* ÉííéãÖÉñãëê* ãï* ñë* Ñá* èÉÜá* ëîÉééõ* ãèèáÜãÉñáéõ* íîãëî* ñ ë* ñäá*

ãêÜãòãÜóÉé*Ñáãêâ*ÖÉééáÜ*ñë*âãòá*áòãÜáêÖá*‚**

*

239

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *u*

**Ñ** ñäá*éáâÉé*íîÉÖñãñãëêáî*èóïñ*ãêÜãÖÉñá*ôäáñäáî*äá*ëî*ïäá***ÉêÜ* ãê*ñäá*ÖÉïá*ëà*

*ëóêïáé*·* äãï* ëî* äáî* ãêïñîóÖñãêâ* ïëéãÖãñëîï*** ÉÖñ* àëî* Éêõ* ëñäáî* í áîïëê* ãê*

îáéÉñãëê*ñë*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*ÉêÜ*ñäá*èÉññáîï*ãñ*ãï*ãêìóãîãêâ*ãêñë *·*ÉêÜ*ãà*ïë*·*

ôäõ*ãñ*ãï*ÉííîëíîãÉñá*àëî*ñäá*íîÉÖñãñãëêáî*ñë*Ñá*ÉóñäëîãïáÜ*ñë* ÉííáÉî*‚*ÉêÜ*

*

**Ö** óêéáïï* ñäá* *ëèèãïïãëêáî* Üáñáîèãêáï* ëñäáîôãïá*·* ñäá* éáâÉé* íîÉÖ ñãñãëêáî*

ôãéé* Ñá* ÉóñäëîãïáÜ* ñë* ÉííáÉî* Ñáàëîá* ñäá* *ëèèãïïãëê* àëî* ñäá* éãèã ñáÜ*

íóîíëïá* ëà* îáíîáïáêñãêâ* ñäá* ãêÜãòãÜóÉé* ôäãéá* ñäá* ãêÜãòãÜóÉé* ãï* âãòãêâ*

áòãÜáêÖá*‰**

*

Applications in all other cases *

*s*s*‰ *ÉîÉâîÉíäï**s*t*ñë**s*x*Éííéõ*ãê*Éêõ*ÖÉïá*ëñäáî*ñäÉê*ñäÉñ*ÜáïÖîã ÑáÜ*ãê*íÉîÉâîÉíä*

*s*r*ÉÑëòá*‰***

*

*s*t*‰ *óÑåáÖñ*ñë*íÉîÉâîÉíä**s*x*·*Éêõ*íáîïëê*ëî*éáâÉé*íîÉÖñãñãëêáî*ôã ïäãêâ*ñë*ëÑñÉãê*

ÉóñäëîãïÉñãëê*ñë*ÉííáÉî*Ñáàëîá*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*Éñ*íóÑéãÖ*äáÉîã êâï*ïäëóéÜ*àãéá*

ôãñä*ñäá**ààãÖá*ëà*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*É*ôîãññáê*ÉííéãÖÉñãëê*àëîè*Ñõ **s**Éõ**t*r*s*v*‰**

*äá*àëîè*ëà*ÉííéãÖÉñãëê*ãï*ÉêêáöáÜ*ñë*ñäáïá*íîÉÖñãÖá*ÜãîáÖñãëêï *‰***

*

*s*u*‰ *êõ* ÉííéãÖÉñãëê* éëÜâáÜ* ôãñäãê* ñäá* ñãèá* îáìóãîáÜ* ôãéé* Ñá* Öëêï ãÜáîáÜ* Ñõ* ñäá*

*ëèèãïïãëêáî*·* ôäë* ôãéé* èÉçá* É* îóéãêâ* ëê* ñäá* ÉííéãÖÉñãëê* ÉêÜ* êëñ ãàõ* ñäá*

ÉííéãÖÉêñ*ëà*äãï*ÜáÖãïãëê*‰***

*

*s*v*‰ *óÑéãÖ*äáÉîãêâï*ëà*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*Éîá*óêéãçáéõ*ñë*Ñá*ÉÜåëóîê áÜ*ëî*ëñäáîôãïá*

ÜáéÉõáÜ*àëî*ñäá*íóîíëïá*ëà*áêñáîñÉãêãêâ*ÉêÜ*Üáñáîèãêãêâ*„*

*

**É** Éêõ*éÉñá*ÉííéãÖÉñãëê*àëî*ÉóñäëîãïÉñãëê*‚*ëî*

*

240

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *v*

**Ñ** Éêõ* àóîñäáî* ÉííéãÖÉñãëê* àëî* ÉóñäëîãïÉñãëê* àîëè* Éê* ÉííéãÖÉêñ* ôäë*·* ãê*

ÖëêïáìóáêÖá*ëà*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*Ôï*îóéãêâ*ëê*ñäá*ãêãñãÉé*ÉííéãÖÉ ñãëê*·*äÉï*

êëñ*ëÑñÉãêáÜ*ñäá*ÉóñäëîãïÉñãëê*ïëóâäñ*‰*

*

*s*w*‰ *ííéãÖÉñãëêï*ñë*ôäãÖä*íÉîÉâîÉíäï**s*v**É***ÉêÜ***Ñ***Éííéõ*ôãéé*Ñá *ÜáÉéñ*ôãñä*Ñõ*ñäá*

*ëèèãïïãëêáî*Éñ*ïóÖä*ñãèá*Éï*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*ÖëêïãÜáîï*Éííîëíî ãÉñá*äÉòãêâ*

îáâÉîÜ*ñë*Ééé*îáéáòÉêñ*ÖëêïãÜáîÉñãëêï*‰*

*

*s*x*‰ *ëñäãêâ* ãê* ñäá* ÉÑëòá* íîÉÖñãÖá* ÜãîáÖñãëêï* íîáòáêñï* É* íáîïëê* à îëè* ïááçãêâ*

ÉóñäëîãïÉñãëê* ñë* ÉííáÉî* Éñ* Éêõ* ñãèá* ãà* ïëèáñäãêâ* ëÖÖóîï* ôäãÖä* é áÉÜï* ñäá*

íáîïëê* ñë* Ñáéãáòá* ñäÉñ* ñäá* íáîïëê*Ôï* ãêñáîáïñï* èÉõ* Ñá* ÉààáÖñáÜ*‰* * *óÖä* Éê*

ÉííéãÖÉñãëê*ïäëóéÜ*ÉÜÜîáïï*ñäá*èÉññáîï*ãÜáêñãàãáÜ*ãê*ñäá*àëîè*ë à*ÉííéãÖÉñãëê*

ÉêêáöáÜ*ñë*ñäáïá*íîÉÖñãÖá*ÜãîáÖñãëêï*‰*

*

Terms of authorisation

*s*y*‰ *êéáïï*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*ëñäáîôãïá*Üáñáîèãêáï*·*áòáîõ*Éóñäëîãï Éñãëê*ñë*ÉííáÉî*

ãï*âîÉêñáÜ*ëê*ñäá*àëééëôãêâ*ÖëêÜãñãëêï*„*

*

**É** ÉóñäëîãïÉñãëê*èÉõ*Ñá*ôãñäÜîÉôê*Ñõ*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*·*ëî*èÉÜá* ïóÑåáÖñ*

ñë*ÉéñáîáÜ*ëî*ÉÜÜãñãëêÉé*éãèãñÉñãëêï*ëî*ÖëêÜãñãëêï*Éñ*Éêõ*ñãèá*‚ *

*

**Ñ** ñäá*êÉñóîá*ÉêÜ*áöñáêñ*ëà*ñäá*íÉîñãÖãíÉñãëê*ëà*ñäá*ÉóñäëîãïáÜ *íáîïëê*ëî*

ÉóñäëîãïáÜ*éáâÉé*íîÉÖñãñãëêáî***Éï*ñäá*ÖÉïá*èÉõ*Ñá***ãê*ñäá*äáÉîãêâ*Ñáàëîá*

ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*ãï*ïóÑåáÖñ*ñë*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*Ôï*Öëêñîëé*àîëè* ñãèá*ñë*

ñãèá*‚*

*

**Ö** ñäá*ÉóñäëîãïáÜ*íáîïëê*ëî*ÉóñäëîãïáÜ*éáâÉé*íîÉÖñãñãëêáî***Éï*ñ äá*ÖÉïá*èÉõ*

Ñá*** äÉï* êë* ÉóñëèÉñãÖ*îãâäñ* ñë* áöÉèãêá* ëî* Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêá* Éêõ* ôãñêáïï*‰**

*èëêâïñ* ëñäáî* ñäãêâï*·* ñäá* *ëèèãïïãëêáî* èÉõ*·* ÜáíáêÜãêâ* ëê* ñäá*

ÖãîÖóèïñÉêÖáï*Éñ*ñäá*îáéáòÉêñ*ñãèá*·*ÜãîáÖñ*ñäÉñ*ñäáîá*ïäëóéÜ*Ñá *êë*Öîëïï*Ê

241

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *w*

áöÉèãêÉñãëê* ëà* É* íÉîñãÖóéÉî* ôãñêáïï* Ñõ* ñäá* ÉóñäëîãïáÜ* íáîïëê* ëî *

ÉóñäëîãïáÜ*éáâÉé*îáíîáïáêñÉñãòá***Éï*ñäá*ÖÉïá*èÉõ*Ñá***·*ëî*ñäÉñ*É êõ*ïóÖä*

Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêÉñãëê*ïäÉéé*Ñá*éãèãñáÜ*Éï*ñë*ñëíãÖ*·*ñãèá*ëî*ëñäáîôã ïá*‚*

*

**Ü** ñäá*ÉóñäëîãïáÜ*íáîïëê*ëî*ÉóñäëîãïáÜ*éáâÉé*íîÉÖñãñãëêáî***Éï*ñ äá*ÖÉïá*èÉõ*

Ñá***ãï*áöíáÖñáÜ*ñë*àëééëô*ñäá*íîÉÖñãÖá*ÉêÜ*ëñäáî*ÜãîáÖñãëêï*ëà*·*ÉêÜ*îóéãêâï*

àîëè*·*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*·*ÉêÜ*êëñ*ñë*Üãïîóíñ*ñäá*íîëÖááÜãêâï*‰*

*

*s*z*‰ *äá* *ëèèãïïãëêáî* ôãéé* Üáñáîèãêá* ñäá* êÉñóîá* ÉêÜ* áöñáêñ* ëà* Éêõ * ëñäáî*

ÖëêÜãñãëêï* ÉññÉÖäãêâ* ñë* Éêõ* âîÉêñ* ëà* ÉóñäëîãïÉñãëê* ñÉçãêâ* ãêñë* ÉÖÖëóêñ* Ééé*

îáéáòÉêñ* ÖëêïãÜáîÉñãëêï*·* ãêÖéóÜãêâ* ñäá* ãêÜãòãÜóÉé* ÖãîÖóèïñÉêÖáï* ëà* ñäá*

ÉííéãÖÉêñ*ÉêÜ*ñäá*Öëêñáêñï*ëà*ñäá*íáîïëê*Ôï*ÉííéãÖÉñãëê*àëî*Éóñä ëîãïÉñãëê*‰*

Production of materials to the Commission

*

*s*{*‰ *äá*àëééëôãêâ*íîÉÖñãÖá*ÜãîáÖñãëêï*îáéÉñá*ñë*ñäá*íîëÜóÖñãëê*ëà*èÉñáîãÉéï*ñë*ñäá*

*ëèèãïïãëê*·* ôäáñäáî* ãê* Éêïôáî* ñë* É* *óèèëêï*·* É* *ëñãÖá* ñë* *îëÜóÖá *·* ëî*

ëñäáîôãïá*‰****íáîïëê*Ôï*ëÑéãâÉñãëêï*ãê*îáéÉñãëê*ñë*ñäá*íîëÜóÖñãë ê*ëà*ÜëÖóèáêñï*

Éîá*âëòáîêáÜ*Ñõ*ñäá**Öñ*·*ëñäáî*éáâãïéÉñãëê*ÉêÜ*ñäá*âáêáîÉé*éÉô*· *ÉêÜ*êëñäãêâ*ãê*

ñäáïá*íîÉÖñãÖá*ÜãîáÖñãëêï*èëÜãàãáï*ñäëïá*ëÑéãâÉñãëêï*‰***

*

*t*r*‰ *éé*áéáÖñîëêãÖ*ÜëÖóèáêñï*èóïñ*Ñá*íîëÜóÖáÜ*áéáÖñîëêãÖÉééõ*ãê* ñäáãî*êÉñãòá*àãéá****

ñäÉñ*ãï*·*ãê*ñäá*àãéá*àëîèÉñ*ãê*ôäãÖä*ñäáõ*áöãïñ*ëê*ñäá*ïõïñáè*ëî*ïõïñáèï*ëà*ñäá*

íáîïëê*íîëÜóÖãêâ*ñäá*ÜëÖóèáêñï*‰* ëî*áöÉèíéá*·**ãÖîëïëàñ**óñéëëç* áèÉãéï*Éîá*

ñë* Ñá* íîëÜóÖáÜ* Éï* *‰èïâ* àãéáï* ÉêÜ* *ãÖîëïëàñ* *ëîÜ* ÜëÖóèáêñï* Éîá* ñ ë* Ñá*

íîëÜóÖáÜ*Éï**‰ÜëÖö*àãéáï*‰*

*

242

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *x*

*t*s*‰ *äáîá*èÉõ*Ñá*ÖãîÖóèïñÉêÖáï*ãê*ôäãÖä*íîëÜóÖñãëê*ëà*áéáÖñîëêãÖ*ÜëÖóèáêñï*ôãéé*

Ñá*íÉîñãÖóéÉîéõ*ÜãààãÖóéñ***àëî*áöÉèíéá*·*Éê*ëîãâãêÉé**ÓêÉñãòá*Ô*àã éá*èÉõ*Ñá*ÖëêñÉãêáÜ*

ëê*É*äÉîÜ*Üîãòá*ëà*·*ëî*ëñäáîôãïá*ôãñäãê*·*É*Öëèíóñáî*ïõïñáè*ñäÉñ *ãï*êëñ*ÖÉíÉÑéá*

ëà*Ñáãêâ*íäõïãÖÉééõ*íîëÜóÖáÜ*Ñõ*òãîñóá*ëà*ãñï*ïãúá*ëî*éëÖÉñãëê** *‰***ê*ïóÖä*É*ÖÉïá*

ñäá* íáîïëê* íîëÜóÖãêâ* ÜëÖóèáêñï* èÉõ*·* ãê* ñäá* àãîïñ* ãêïñÉêÖá*·* îáïí ëêÜ* ñë* ñäá*

êëñãÖá*ñë*íîëÜóÖá*Ñõ*ÖîáÉñãêâ*ÉêÜ*íîëÜóÖãêâ*Éê*áöÉÖñ*áéáÖñîëêãÖ *Öëíõ*ëà*ñäá*

ëîãâãêÉé*êÉñãòá*àãéá*·*ïóÖä*Öëíõ*ñë*Ñá*ïÉòáÜ*ëêñë*Éê*áéáÖñîëêãÖ* ïñëîÉâá*ÜáòãÖá*‰**

*äáîá*É*íáîïëê*Öäëïáï*ñë*íîëÖááÜ*ãê*ñäãï*ôÉõ*„*

*

**É** ñäáõ*Éîá*ñë*âãòá*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*ôîãññáê*êëñãÖá*ëà*àÉÖñ*ñäáõ* äÉòá*Üëêá*

ïë*‚*ÉêÜ*

*

**Ñ** ñäá*êëñãÖá*ñë*íîëÜóÖá*ïäÉéé*Ñá*ñîáÉñáÜ*Éï*äÉòãêâ*Ñááê*Öëèíéã áÜ*ôãñä*ãê*

íÉîñ*ëêéõ*·*ÉêÜ*ñäá*íáîïëê*ôãéé*îáèÉãê*ëÑéãâáÜ*ñë*íîáïáîòá*ñäá*ëîãâãêÉé*

êÉñãòá* àãéá* ëê* ñäá* Öëèíóñáî* ïõïñáè* àîëè* ôäãÖä* ãñ* äÉï* Ñááê* Öëíãá Ü*·*

íáêÜãêâ*Éêõ*àóîñäáî*ÖÉéé*ëê*ñäá*êëñãÖá*ñë*íîëÜóÖá*‰*

*

*t*t*‰ *ê*îáéÉñãëê*ñë*ñäá*íîëÜóÖñãëê*ëà*Éê*áéáÖñîëêãÖ*Öëíõ*ëà*Éêõ*áéáÖñîëêãÖ*àãéá*ëî*àãéáï*

ëê* Éê* áéáÖñîëêãÖ* ïñëîÉâá* ÜáòãÖá*·* ñäá* àëééëôãêâ* íîÉÖñãÖá* ãï* áêÖë óîÉâáÜ* ãê*

îáéÉñãëê*ñë*ñäá*ïáéáÖñãëê*ëà*ñäá*ÜáòãÖá*ñë*Ñá*óïáÜ*„*

*

ξ ****Ê*àëî*ÜÉñÉ*íîëÜóÖñãëêï*éáïï*ñäÉê**x*r*r***

ξ *****Ê*àëî*ÜÉñÉ*íîëÜóÖñãëêï*Ñáñôááê**x*r*r***ÉêÜ**v**

ξ *ëîñÉÑéá******ÉîÜ**îãòá***** **àëîèÉñ****Ê*àëî*ÜÉñÉ*íîëÜóÖñãëêï*Ñá ñôááê*

*v**ÉêÜ**u*t**

ξ *öñáîêÉé**ÉîÜ*Üîãòá****àëî*íîëÜóÖñãëêï*ëòáî**u*t**‰*

*

*à*íîëÜóÖñãëê*áöÖááÜï*ÉòÉãéÉÑéá*èáÜãÉ*5ï*ÖÉíÉÖãñõ*·*íîëÜóÖñãëê*ïä ëóéÜ*Ñá*ïíéãñ*

Ñáñôááê*èáÜãÉ*‰*

*

243

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *y*

*t*u*‰ *áîïëêï*îáìóãîáÜ*ñë*íîëÜóÖá*áéáÖñîëêãÖ*ÜëÖóèáêñï*èóïñ*áêïóîá *ñäáõ*íîëÜóÖá*

Ééé*íÉîñï*ëà*ñäá*ÜëÖóèáêñ*‰** ëî*áöÉèíéá*·*ôäáîá*ñäá*áéáÖñîëêãÖ*à ãéá*ãï*Éê*áèÉãé*

ÖäÉãê*·*Ééé*íÉîñï*ëà*ñäÉñ*ÖäÉãê*Éîá*ñë*Ñá*íîëÜóÖáÜ*·*ÉêÜ*ôäáîá*ñäá*áéáÖñîëêãÖ*àãéá*ãï*

Éê* áèÉãé* ôãñä* Éê* ÉññÉÖäèáêñ*·* Ñëñä* ñäá* áèÉãé* ÉêÜ* ãñï* ÉññÉÖäèáêñ* Éîá* ñë* Ñá*

íîëÜóÖáÜ*‰*

*

*t*v*‰ *äáîá* É* íáîïëê* ïáîòáÜ* ôãñä* É* êëñãÖá* ñë* íîëÜóÖá* ãï* îáìóãîáÜ* ñ ë* íîëÜóÖá* É*

ÜëÖóèáêñ*ôäãÖä*ãï*Éê*áéáÖñîëêãÖ*àãéá*ÉêÜ*ñäá*ëêéõ*òáîïãëê*ëà*ñä Éñ*ÜëÖóèáêñ*

ôäãÖä*ñäá*íáîïëê*äÉï*ãï*Éê*áéáÖñîëêãÖ*àãéá*·*ñäá*íáîïëê*ãï*êëñ*îáìóãîáÜ*ñë***ÉêÜ*

ïäëóéÜ*êëñ***Öëêòáîñ*ñäá**ÓêÉñãòá*Ô*áéáÖñîëêãÖ*àãéá*ñë*íÉíáî*àëî*ñ äá*íóîíëïáï*ëà*

íîëÜóÖñãëê*ãê*îáïíëêïá*ñë*ñäá*êëñãÖá*ñë*íîëÜóÖá*‰*****ëôáòáî*ãà*É *íÉíáî*Öëíõ*ëà*

ñäá*áéáÖñîëêãÖ*àãéá*ÉéîáÉÜõ*áöãïñï*ôäáê*ñäá*êëñãÖá*ñë*íîëÜóÖá*ã ï*ïáîòáÜ*ÉêÜ*ãï*

ÖÉóâäñ*Ñõ*ñäá*êëñãÖá*ñë*íîëÜóÖá*·*Ñëñä*ñäá*áéáÖñîëêãÖ*àãéá*ÉêÜ*ñ äá*íÉíáî*Öëíõ*Éîá*

ñë*Ñá*íîëÜóÖáÜ*‰***

*

*t*w*‰ *áîïëêï*ëÑéãâáÜ*ñë*íîëÜóÖá*äÉîÜ*Öëíõ*ÜëÖóèáêñï*èóïñ*íîëÜóÖá* ñäá*ëîãâãêÉé*

äÉîÜ*Öëíõ*ÜëÖóèáêñï*‰***ñ*ãï*êëñ*íáîèãïïãÑéá*ñë*çááí*ñäá*ëîãâãêÉ é*ÉêÜ*ÖîáÉñá*ÉêÜ*

íîëÜóÖá*É*Öëíõ*‰*

*

Legal professional privilege

*t*x*‰ *äá*àëééëôãêâ*íîÉÖñãÖá*ÜãîáÖñãëêï*ÉÜÜîáïï*ñäá*ôÉõ*ñäá**ëèèãï ïãëê*ôãéé*îáÖáãòá*

ÉêÜ*ÖëêïãÜáî*É*ÖéÉãè*óêÜáî*ï**x*****s***ëà*ñäá**Öñ*ñäÉñ*É*íáîïëê*äÉ ï*É*îáÉïëêÉÑéá*

áöÖóïá*àëî*àÉãéãêâ*ñë*íîëÜóÖá*É*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ëê*ñäá*âîëóêÜ*ëà*éáâÉé *íîëàáïïãëêÉé*

íîãòãéáâá*‰*

*

*t*y*‰ *äáîá*Éê*Éïïáîñãëê*ãï*èÉÜá*ñäÉñ*É*íáîïëê*äÉï*É*îáÉïëêÉÑéá*áö Öóïá* àëî* êëñ*

íîëÜóÖãêâ*É*ÜëÖóèáêñ*Ñõ*îáÉïëê*ëà*ñäá*èÉññáî*ïáñ*ëóñ*ãê*ï**x*****s ****É***ëà*ñäá*

*Öñ****ñäÉñ*ãï*·*ñäÉñ*É*Öëóîñ*äÉï*àëóêÜ*ñäá*ÜëÖóèáêñ***ëî*ñäá*îáéá òÉêñ*íÉîñ*ëà*ñäá*

ÜëÖóèáêñ***ñë*Ñá*ïóÑåáÖñ*ñë*éáâÉé*íîëàáïïãëêÉé*íîãòãéáâá****ñäá*íáîïëê*èóïñ*·*Éï*

244

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *z*

ïëëê*Éï*ãï*îáÉïëêÉÑéõ*íîÉÖñãÖÉÑéá*ÉêÜ*ãê*Éêõ*áòáêñ*Ñáàëîá*ñäá*í îëÜóÖñãëê*ëà*ñäá*

ÜëÖóèáêñ*ñë*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*·*àãéá*ôãñä*ñäá**ààãÖá*ëà*ñäá**ëèèãïï ãëê*„*

*

**É** É*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ôäãÖä*ïóààãÖãáêñéõ*ÜáïÖîãÑáï*ñäá*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ãê*ìóáï ñãëê***ëî*

ñäá*îáéáòÉêñ*íÉîñ*ëà*ñäá*ÜëÖóèáêñ***ïë*Éï*ñë*áêÉÑéá*ñäá**ëèèãïïã ëêáî*ñë*

Ñá*ïÉñãïàãáÜ*ñäÉñ*ñäá*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ãï*ãÜáêñãÖÉé*ñë*ñäÉñ*ôäãÖä*ãï*ñä á*ïóÑåáÖñ*ëà*

ñäá*Öëóîñ*Ôï*íîáòãëóï*àãêÜãêâ*‚*

*

**Ñ** É*Öëíõ*ëà*ñäá*åóÜâèáêñ*ëî*ëîÜáî*îáÖëîÜãêâ*ñäá*àãêÜãêâ*ëà*ñäá *Öëóîñ*îáéãáÜ*

óíëê*‚*ÉêÜ*

*

**Ö** ïóÖä*áòãÜáêÖá*Éï*ñäá*íáîïëê*ãï*ÉÑéá*ñë*íîëòãÜá*ñë*ÜáèëêïñîÉñ á*ñäÉñ*ñäáîá*

äÉï* Ñááê* êë* ôÉãòáî* ëî* éëïï* ëà* íîãòãéáâá* ïãêÖá* ñäá* ÜÉñá* ëà* ñäá* Ö ëóîñ*Ôï*

àãêÜãêâ*‰*

*

*t*z*‰ *äáîá*É*ÖéÉãè*ãï*èÉÜá*óêÜáî*ï**x*****s****Ñ***ëà*ñäá**Öñ*ñäÉñ*É*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ëî*íÉîñ*ëà*

É*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ãï*ïóÑåáÖñ*ñë*éáâÉé*íîëàáïïãëêÉé*íîãòãéáâá*·*ñäá*íáîï ëê*èÉçãêâ*ñäá*

ÖéÉãè*ãï*ñë*Üë*ïë*Ñõ*ôîãññáê*êëñãÖá*àãéáÜ*ôãñä*ñäá**ààãÖá*ëà*ñä á**ëèèãïïãëê*Éï*

ïëëê*Éï*îáÉïëêÉÑéõ*íîÉÖñãÖÉÑéá*ÉêÜ*ãê*Ééé*ÖÉïáï*ôãñäãê*ñäá*ñãèá*íîëòãÜáÜ*àëî*

óêÜáî*ñäá**Öñ*·*ñëâáñäáî*ôãñä*Éêõ*ÉêÜ*Ééé*áòãÜáêÖá*ÉêÜ*ôîãññáê*ï óÑèãïïãëêï*Éï*

ñäá*íáîïëê*îáéãáï*óíëê*ãê*ïóííëîñ*ëà*ñäá*ÖéÉãè*‰***

*

*t*{*‰ *äá* *ëèèãïïãëêáî* ôãéé* ñäáê* íîëÖááÜ* ñë* ÖëêïãÜáî* ÉêÜ* Üáñáîèãêá * ñäá* ÖéÉãè*

**ôäáîá*äá*ñäãêçï*ãñ*ÉííîëíîãÉñá*·*Éàñáî*áöáîÖãïãêâ*äãï*íëôáî*óêÜ áî*ï**x*****u***ëà*

ñäá**Öñ*ñë*îáìóãîá*íîëÜóÖñãëê*ëà*ñäá*ÜëÖóèáêñ***ÉêÜ*êëñãàõ*ñäá*Ö éÉãèÉêñ*ëà*äãï*

ÜáÖãïãëê*‰*

245

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *{*

Self incrimination

*u*r*‰ *äá*àëééëôãêâ*íîÉÖñãÖá*ÜãîáÖñãëêï*ïáñ*ëóñ*ñäá*ôÉõ*ñäá**ëèèãï ïãëê*ôãéé*îáÖáãòá*

ÉêÜ*ÖëêïãÜáî*É*ÖéÉãè*óêÜáî*ï**x**ëà*ñäá* *Öñ*ñäÉñ*É*íáîïëê*äÉï*É*îáÉïëêÉÑéá*

áöÖóïá*àëî*àÉãéãêâ*ñë*íîëÜóÖá*É*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ëê*ñäá*âîëóêÜï*ëà*ïáéà *ãêÖîãèãêÉñãëê*‰*

*

*u*s*‰ *ê*ñäá*áòáêñ*Éêõ*íáîïëê*ÖéÉãèï*ñë*Ñá*áöÖóïáÜ*àîëè*íîëÜóÖãêâ* Éêõ*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ëî*

ëñäáî*ñäãêâ*Ñõ*îáÉïëê*ëà*ñäá*ëíáîÉñãëê*ëà*ï**x****u***ëî****v***ëà*ñäá **Öñ*·*ñäá*íáîïëê*

èóïñ*àãéá*ôãñä*ñäá**ààãÖá*ëà*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*áãñäáî*Éñ*ëî*íîãëî* ñë*ñäá*ñãèá*àëî*

íîëÜóÖãêâ*ñäá*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ëî*ëñäáî*ñäãêâ*„*

*

**É** ñäá*Öëóîñ*ÉêÜ*ëñäáî*ÜëÖóèáêñï*ÜáèëêïñîÉñãêâ*ñäÉñ*ñäá*íáîïëê* äÉï*Ñááê*

ÖäÉîâáÜ*ôãñä*Éê*ëààáêÖá*ëî*ãï*É*íÉîñõ*ñë*íîëÖááÜãêâï*àëî*ñäá*ãèíëïãñãëê*ëà*

É*íáêÉéñõ*ÉâÉãêïñ*ñäÉñ*íáîïëê*‚*

*

**Ñ** É* ôîãññáê* ÜáïÖîãíñãëê* ëà* ñäá* ïñÉâá* Éñ* ôäãÖä* ñäá* ÖäÉîâá* ëî* íá êÉéñõ*

íîëÖááÜãêâï*Éîá*óí*ñë*·*ÉêÜ*Éêõ*ÜëÖóèáêñï*ñë*ïóííëîñ*ñäÉñ*‚*

*

**Ö** ôîãññáê*ïóÑèãïïãëêï*Éï*ñë*äëô*ñäá*íîëÜóÖñãëê*ëà*ñäá*ÜëÖóèáêñ *ëî*ñäãêâ*

èãâäñ*ñáêÜ*ñë*áãñäáî*ãêÖîãèãêÉñá*ñäá*íáîïëê*ëî*èÉçá*ñäá*íáîïëê* éãÉÑéá*ñë*

É*íáêÉéñõ*‚*ÉêÜ*

*

**Ü** ïóÖä*áòãÜáêÖá*Éï*ñäá*íáîïëê*ôãïäáï*ñë*îáéõ*óíëê*ãê*ïóííëîñ*ë à*ñäá*ÖéÉãè*‰*

Electronic court book

*

*u*t*‰ *äá**ëèèãïïãëê*ôãéé*èÉãêñÉãê*Éê*áéáÖñîëêãÖ*Öëóîñ*Ñëëç*** Court Book***‰**äá*

*ëóîñ**ëëç*ôãéé*ÖëêñÉãê*ñáêÜáîáÜ*áöäãÑãñï*ÉêÜ*ñîÉêïÖîãíñï*ëà*íó ÑéãÖ*äáÉîãêâï*

**ÉííîëíîãÉñáéõ*îáÜÉÖñáÜ*ãê*éãâäñ*ëà*êëê*ÊíóÑéãÖÉñãëê*ÜãîáÖñãëêï** *·*ÉêÜ*íëïïãÑéõ*

ëñäáî*ÜëÖóèáêñï*‰*

*

246

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *s*r*

*u*u*‰ *ííîëíîãÉñá*ÉÖÖáïï*ñë*ñäá**ëóîñ**ëëç*ôãéé*Ñá*âîÉêñáÜ*ñë*íáîï ëêï*ÉóñäëîãïáÜ*ñë*

ÉííáÉî*Ñáàëîá*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*·*ÉêÜ*ñë*ïóÖä*ëñäáî*íáîïëêï*ôäë*ïáá ç*ÉÖÖáïï*ÉêÜ*

ãê* îáïíáÖñ* ëà* ôäëè* ñäá* *ëèèãïïãëêáî* ñäãêçï* ãñ* ÉííîëíîãÉñá* ñäÉñ* ÉÖÖáïï* Ñá*

âîÉêñáÜ*‰*

*

*u*v*‰ *äá**ëóîñ**ëëç*ôãéé*Ñá*ÉòÉãéÉÑéá*ñë*ñäëïá*íáîïëêï*ñë*ôäëè*ÉÖ Öáïï*äÉï*Ñááê*

âîÉêñáÜ*Ñëñä*ãêïãÜá*ñäá*äáÉîãêâ*îëëè*ÉêÜ*òãÉ*ñäá*ãêñáîêáñ*ëóñïã Üá*ñäá*äáÉîãêâ*

îëëè*‰*

*

*u*w*‰ *äáê*É*ôãñêáïï*ïñÉñáèáêñ*ëî*ëñäáî*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ãï*ñáêÜáîáÜ*·*ãñ*ô ãéé*ÉííáÉî*ãê*ñäá*

*ëóîñ**ëëç*ÉêÜ*Ñá*ãÜáêñãàãáÜ*Éï*Éê*áöäãÑãñ*‰*

*

*u*x*‰ *ëÖóèáêñï*ãê*ñäá**ëóîñ**ëëç*ôãéé*Ñá*ÉÑéá*ñë*Ñá*ÜãïíéÉõáÜ*ëê* ïÖîááêï*ãê*ñäá*

äáÉîãêâ*îëëè*‰*

*

*u*y*‰ *ëÖóèáêñï* ôäãÖä* äÉòá* êëñ* Ñááê* ñáêÜáîáÜ* Ñóñ* ôäãÖä* Éîá* ãêñáêÜá Ü* ñë* Ñá*

ñáêÜáîáÜ* èÉõ*·* ãê* ïëèá* ÖÉïáï*·* Ñá* íéÉÖáÜ* ëê* ñäá* *ëóîñ* *ëëç* àëî* îáòãáô* Ñõ*

íáîïëêï* ôãñä* ÉÖÖáïï* ñë* ñäá* *ëóîñ* *ëëç* íîãëî* ñë* É* íÉîñãÖóéÉî* ôãñ êáïï* Ñáãêâ*

ÖÉééáÜ* ñë* âãòá* áòãÜáêÖá* ëî* É* íÉîñãÖóéÉî* ÜëÖóèáêñ* Ñáãêâ* ñáêÜáîáÜ *‰* *äá*

*ëèèãïïãëêáî*ôãéé*Üáñáîèãêá*ôäáñäáî*ñäãï*ãï*ñë*ëÖÖóî*ëê*É*ÖÉïá*Ê Ñõ*ÊÖÉïá*ÑÉïãï*‰**

*ñäáîôãïá*ÜáñÉãéï*ëà*áòãÜáêÖá*ñë*Ñá*íîëÜóÖáÜ*ñë*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê* ôãéé*êëñ*Ñá*

íóÑéãïäáÜ*Ñáàëîá*ãñ*ãï*ÖÉééáÜ*‰*

*u*z*‰ *óîïóÉêñ*ñë*ïáÖñãëê**x****u****Ñ***ëà*ñäá**Öñ*·*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*Üã îáÖñï*ñäÉñ*„*

*

**É** óêñãé*ñäáãî*ñáêÜáî*·*ñäá*Öëêñáêñï*ëà*ÜëÖóèáêñï*íéÉÖáÜ*ëêñë*ñä á**ëóîñ**ëëç*

Éîá*êëñ*ñë*Ñá*íóÑéãïäáÜ*ñë*Éêõ*íáîïëêï*ëñäáî*ñäÉê*íáîïëêï*ñë*ôä ëè*ñäá*

*ëèèãïïãëê* äÉï* âîÉêñáÜ* ÉÖÖáïï* ñë* ñäá* *ëóîñ* *ëëç* Éï* îáÖëîÜáÜ* ãê* É*

îáâãïñáî* ëà* ïóÖä* íáîïëêï* çáíñ* Ñõ* ñäá* *ëèèãïïãëê*·* ÉêÜ* Éîá* ñë* Ñá* çáíñ*

ÖëêàãÜáêñãÉé*ÉêÜ*êëñ*ñë*Ñá*óïáÜ*àëî*íóîíëïáï*ëñäáî*ñäÉê*ãê*ÖëêêáÖñãëê*

ôãñä*ñäá*íîëÖááÜãêâï*ëà*ñäá**ëõÉé**ëèèãïïãëê*‚*

247

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *s*s*

*

**Ñ** íáîïëêï* ôäë* Éîá* âîÉêñáÜ* ÉÖÖáïï* ñë* ñäá* *ëóîñ* *ëëç* Éîá* êëñ* ñë* èÉçá*

ÉòÉãéÉÑéá* ñäáãî* ÉÖÖáïï* ÜáñÉãéï* ñë* ëñäáî* íáîïëêï* ôäë* äÉòá* êëñ* Ñááê*

âîÉêñáÜ*ÉÖÖáïï*ñë*ñäá**ëóîñ**ëëç*·*ëî*ëñäáîôãïá*àÉÖãéãñÉñá*íáîïëêï*ôäë*

äÉòá*êëñ*Ñááê*âîÉêñáÜ*ÉÖÖáïï*ñë*ñäá**ëóîñ**ëëç*ëÑñÉãêãêâ*ÉÖÖáïï *ñë*ñäá*

*ëóîñ**ëëç*‰*

*

Transcripts of public hearings

*

*u*{*‰ *ê* áÜãñáÜ* ñîÉêïÖîãíñ*·* ôäãÖä* ãï* îáòãïáÜ* Ñõ* ñäá* *ëèèãïïãëê*Ôï* ñîÉêïÖîãíñ*

ÖëêñîÉÖñëî*ÉêÜ*îáòãïáÜ*Ñõ*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*àëî*ÖëêàãÜáêñãÉéãñõ*ãï ïóáï*ëêéõ*·*ôãéé*

Ñá*íéÉÖáÜ*ëê*ñäá**ëóîñ**ëëç*ôäáê*îáÉïëêÉÑéõ*íîÉÖñãÖÉÑéá*‰*

*

*v*r*‰ *êõ*íáîïëê*ïááçãêâ*ñäá*èÉçãêâ*ëà*ÖëîîáÖñãëêï*ñë*ñäá*áÜãñáÜ*ñ îÉêïÖîãíñ***ñäÉñ*ãï*·*

ñäá* ñîÉêïÖîãíñ* îáàáîîáÜ* ñë* ãê* íÉîÉâîÉíä* *u*{* ÉÑëòá*** ïäëóéÜ* Üë* ïë* Ñõ* ôÉõ* ëà*

êëñãÖá*ãê*ôîãñãêâ*ñë*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*Ôï**ïïëÖãÉñá*‰**äëïá*ÉííéãÖ Éñãëêï*ôãéé*Ñá*

ÜáÉéñ*ôãñä*ÉÜèãêãïñîÉñãòáéõ*ôãñäãê*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*ÉêÜ*ñäá*íÉîñõ *ïááçãêâ*ñäá*

ÖëîîáÖñãëê* ôãéé* Ñá* êëñãàãáÜ* ëà* ñäá* *ëèèãïïãëêáî*Ôï* ÜáñáîèãêÉñãëê * Ñõ* äãï*

*ïïëÖãÉñá*·*ÉêÜ*ÜáñÉãéï*ëà*Éêõ*ÖëîîáÖñãëêï*ïë*èÉÜá*ôãéé*Ñá*íéÉÖá Ü*ëê*áãñäáî*ëî*

Ñëñä*ëà**ëóîñ**ëëç*ÉêÜ*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*Ôï*ôáÑïãñá*àîëè*ñãèá*ñë*ñã èá*‰**

*

*v*s*‰ *îÉé* ÉííéãÖÉñãëêï* àëî* ñîÉêïÖîãíñ* ÖëîîáÖñãëêï* Üóîãêâ* äáÉîãêâï * ôãéé* êëñ* Ñá*

áêñáîñÉãêáÜ*áöÖáíñ*ãê*áöÖáíñãëêÉé*ÖãîÖóèïñÉêÖáï*‰*

*

*v*t*‰ ëééëôãêâ*ñäá*èÉçãêâ*ëà*Éêõ*ÖëîîáÖñãëêï*·*ñäá*ÉóñäëîãïáÜ*ñîÉêïÖîãíñ*ôãéé*Ñá*äáéÜ*

Ñõ*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*Ôï**ïïëÖãÉñá*‰****Öëíõ*ëà*ñäá*ÉóñäëîãïáÜ*ñîÉê ïÖîãíñ*ôãéé*Ñá*

íóÑéãïäáÜ*ëê*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*Ôï*ôáÑïãñá*ãê*** *ÉêÜ**ëîÜ*àëîèÉñ*Éï *ÉêÜ*ôäáê*

ãñ*ãï*ÉòÉãéÉÑéá*‰*

*

248

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *s*t*

Witnesses and evidence

*

*v*u*‰ *óÑåáÖñ*ñë*ñäá*Öëêñîëé*ëà*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*·**ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãê â*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*

ôãéé* Üáñáîèãêá* ôäÉñ* ôãñêáïïáï* Éîá* ÖÉééáÜ* Üóîãêâ* íóÑéãÖ* äáÉîãêâï *·* ôäÉñ*

ÜëÖóèáêñï*Éîá*ñáêÜáîáÜ*Üóîãêâ*íóÑéãÖ*äáÉîãêâï*·*ÉêÜ*ãê*ôäÉñ*ëîÜá î*ôãñêáïïáï*

ôãéé*Ñá*ÖÉééáÜ*ÉêÜ*áöÉèãêáÜ*‰*

*

*v*v*‰ *éé*ôãñêáïïáï*ôäë*âãòá*áòãÜáêÖá*ñë*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*Éñ*É*íóÑéã Ö*äáÉîãêâ*ôãéé*Ñá*

ÖÉééáÜ*ÉêÜ*áöÉèãêáÜ*Ñõ**ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*‰*

*

*v*w*‰ *ñ* ñäá* ÖëêÖéóïãëê* ëà* ñäá* áöÉèãêÉñãëê* ëà* É* ôãñêáïï* ** Witness A*** Ñõ* *ëóêïáé*

*ïïãïñãêâ*Éñ*É*íóÑéãÖ*äáÉîãêâ*·*ñäá*íóÑéãÖ*äáÉîãêâ*ëà**ãñêáïï***Ô ï*áòãÜáêÖá*ôãéé*Ñá*

ÉÜåëóîêáÜ*ÉêÜ*ñäáîá*ôãéé*Ñá*êë*Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêÉñãëê*ëà**ãñêáïï***É ñ*ñäÉñ*ñãèá*‰**

*

*v*x*‰ *äá* *ëèèãïïãëêáî* ôãéé* ïóÑïáìóáêñéõ* èÉçá* ÜãîáÖñãëêï* âãòãêâ* íáîïëêï* ñäá*

ëííëîñóêãñõ*ñë*àãéá*ôãñä*ñäá**ààãÖá*ëà*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*ñäá*àëééë ôãêâ*ÜëÖóèáêñï*

ôãñäãê*É*ÜáïãâêÉñáÜ*ñãèá*„*

*

**É** É*ïãâêáÜ*ïñÉñáèáêñ*ëà*áòãÜáêÖá*àîëè*Éêõ*ôãñêáïï*** Witness B***ÉÜòÉêÖãêâ*

èÉñáîãÉé*ÑáÉîãêâ*ëê*ñäá*ÉÖÖóîÉÖõ*ëà*ñäá*áòãÜáêÖá*âãòáê*Ñõ**ãñêá ïï***·*

Ñáãêâ*É*ïñÉñáèáêñ*ïáññãêâ*ëóñ*ñäá*áòãÜáêÖá*ñäÉñ**ãñêáïï***ôëóéÜ *âãòá*

óêÜáî*ëÉñä*ëî*ëê*ÉààãîèÉñãëê*ãà*ÖÉééáÜ*Éï*É*ôãñêáïï*‚*

*

**Ñ** Éêõ*ÉêÜ*Ééé*ïóÑèãïïãëêï*Éï*ñë*ôäõ*ñäá*áòãÜáêÖá*ëà**ãñêáïï*** ïäëóéÜ*Ñá*

éáÜ*Ñáàëîá*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*‚*

*

**Ö** É*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ãÜáêñãàõãêâ*·*ôãñä*íîáÖãïãëê*·*ñäá*ñëíãÖï*ãê*îáïíáÖ ñ*ëà*ôäãÖä*

ñäÉñ*íáîïëê*ëî*äãï*ëî*äáî*éáâÉé*îáíîáïáêñÉñãòá*ôãïäáï*ñë*Öîëïï*Ê áöÉèãêá*

*ãñêáïï***‚*

*

249

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *s*u*

**Ü** Éêõ*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ñäá*íáîïëê*ëî*ñäá*íáîïëê*Ôï*éáâÉé*îáíîáïáêñÉñãòá *èãâäñ*ôãïä*

ñë*íóñ*ñë*ëî*ïäëô**ãñêáïï***·*ëî*ëñäáîôãïá*óïá*·*àëî*ñäá*íóîíëïáï *ëà*Öîëïï*Ê

áöÉèãêÉñãëê*‚*

*

**á** Éêõ* ÉêÜ* Ééé* ïóÑèãïïãëêï* Éï* ñë* ôäõ* ñäá* íáîïëê* ëî* ñäá* íáîïëê*Ôï * éáâÉé*

îáíîáïáêñÉñãòá* ïäëóéÜ* Ñá* íáîèãññáÜ* ñë* Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêá* *ãñêáïï* ** ã ê*

îáïíáÖñ*ëà*ñäá*ñëíãÖï*ïë*ãÜáêñãàãáÜ*·*ãêÖéóÜãêâ*Ñõ*îáàáîáêÖá*ñë* **Éèëêâïñ*

ëñäáî* ñäãêâï*** ñäá* êÉñóîá* ÉêÜ* áöñáêñ* ëà* Éêõ* ÜãààáîáêÖáï* Ñáñôááê* ñäá*

áòãÜáêÖá*âãòáê*Ñõ**ãñêáïï***ÉêÜ*ñäá*Öëêñáêñï*ëà*ñäá*ïãâêáÜ*ïñÉñ áèáêñ*ëà*

áòãÜáêÖá*ëà**ãñêáïï***‰*

*

**íáîïëê*ôäë*éëÜâáï*Éêõ*ïóÖä*èÉñáîãÉé*ãï*îáàáîîáÜ*ñë*Ñáéëô*Éï*É ê* Applicant*‰*

*

*v*y*‰ *ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*ôãéé*îáÉÜ*ÉêÜ*ÖëêïãÜáî*ÜëÖóèáêñï*ïë*àãéáÜ* Ñõ*Éê**ííéãÖÉêñ*

ÉêÜ* àëîè* Éê* ëíãêãëê* ÉÑëóñ* ñäá* áöñáêñ* ñë* ôäãÖä* ñäá* *ííéãÖÉêñ* ïäë óéÜ* Ñá*

íáîèãññáÜ* ñë* Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêá* *ãñêáïï* **·* ÉêÜ* êëñãàõ* ñäá* *ííéãÖÉêñ* ÉêÜ* ñäá*

*ëèèãïïãëêáî*ëà*ñäÉñ*ëíãêãëê*‰**

*

*v*z*‰ *êéáïï* ñäá* *ëèèãïïãëêáî* ëñäáîôãïá* Üáñáîèãêáï*·* ôäáê* ñäá* íóÑéã Ö* äáÉîãêâï*

îáïóèá*„*

*

**É** *ãñêáïï***ôãéé*Ñá*ÖÉééáÜ*ñë*âãòá*áòãÜáêÖá*Ñõ**ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*·**ôãéé*Ñá*

ÉïçáÜ*ñë*ÉÜëíñ*äãï*ëî*äáî*ïñÉñáèáêñ*íîëòãÜáÜ*ãê*ÉÖÖëîÜÉêÖá*ôãñä *ñäá*

ÉÑëòá*îáâãèá*·*ÉêÜ*ôãéé*Ñá*áöÉèãêáÜ*Ñõ**ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*‚*

*

**Ñ** ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*ôãéé*íáîèãñ*Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêÉñãëê*ëà**ãñêáïï*** Ñõ*ïóÖä*

íáîïëêï*ÉêÜ*ñë*ïóÖä*áöñáêñ*Éï*äá*ÖëêïãÜáîï*ÉííîëíîãÉñá*‰***ê*ïóÖ ä*ÖÉïáï*·*

ñäá*óïóÉé*ÉííîëÉÖä*ôãéé*Ñá*ñäÉñ*„*

*

**ã** *****ôäáîá*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*ñäãêçï*ãñ* ÉííîëíîãÉñá*·**ãñêáïï***Ôï*éáâÉé*

îáíîáïáêñÉñãòá*ôãéé*áöÉèãêá**ãñêáïï***ëê*Éêõ*èÉññáîï*ïáñ*ëóñ*ãê *

250

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *s*v*

*ãñêáïï***Ôï*ïñÉñáèáêñ*ëà*áòãÜáêÖá*ñäÉñ*äÉòá*êëñ*Ñááê*ÜáÉéñ*ôãñä *

ñäîëóâä**ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*Ôï*áöÉèãêÉñãëê*‚*

*

**ãã********ëñäáî*íÉîñãáï*ôäë*Éîá*íáîèãññáÜ*ñë*Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêá*ôãéé *Üë*ïë*‚*

*

**ããã** **ãñêáïï***Ôï*éáâÉé*îáíîáïáêñÉñãòá*ôãéé*îá*ÊáöÉèãêá*‚*

* **ãò** **ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*ôãéé*îá*ÊáöÉèãêá*‚*

*

**Ö** ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*ôãéé*·*ñë*ñäá*áöñáêñ*êáÖáïïÉîõ*·*âãòá*îóéãêâï*ëê*ôäáñäáî*·*

ÉêÜ*ãà*ïë*ñë*ôäÉñ*áöñáêñ*·*ñäá**ííéãÖÉêñ*ëî*ãñï*éáâÉé*îáíîáïáêñÉ ñãòá*èÉõ*

Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêá**ãñêáïï***äÉòãêâ*îáâÉîÜ*ñë*ñäá*èÉñáîãÉéï*ïóÑèãññá Ü*Ñõ*

ñäá**ííéãÖÉêñ*ÉêÜ*ñäá*òãáôï*áöíîáïïáÜ*Ñõ**ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*‚*

*

**Ü** ôäáîá*ÉííîëíîãÉñá*·**ãñêáïï***ôãéé*Ñá*îáÖÉééáÜ*Ñõ**ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*ñë*Ñá*

Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêáÜ* Ñõ* ñäá* *ííéãÖÉêñ* ëî* ñäáãî* éáâÉé* îáíîáïáêñÉñãòá* ñ ë* ñäá*

áöñáêñ*íáîèãññáÜ*Ñõ*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*Ôï*îóéãêâ*‰*

*

*v*{*‰ *êõ*ôãñêáïï*èÉõ*Ñá*îá*ÊáöÉèãêáÜ*Ñõ**ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*‰*

*

*w*r*‰ *ê*Éêõ*ÖãîÖóèïñÉêÖá*ëñäáî*ñäÉê*ñäÉñ*ÖëêñáèíéÉñáÜ*Ñõ*íÉîÉâîÉí ä**v*x**Ü***·*É*Öëíõ*

ëà* Éêõ* ÜëÖóèáêñ* íîëíëïáÜ* ñë* Ñá* íóñ* ëî* ïäëôê* ñë* É* ôãñêáïï* ãê* Öîë ïï*Ê

áöÉèãêÉñãëê*èóïñ*Ñá*íîëòãÜáÜ*ñë**ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*Éï*ïëëê*Éï*íë ïïãÑéá*Éàñáî*É*

ÜáÖãïãëê*ãï*èÉÜá*ñë*óïá*É*ÜëÖóèáêñ*àëî*ñäãï*íóîíëïá*·*ÉêÜ*ãê*Ééé *ÖÉïáï*íîãëî*ñë*

ãñï*ãêñáêÜáÜ*óïá*‰*

*

Prior notification of certain issues

*w*s*‰ *êõ*íáîïëê*Ñáãêâ*ÉóñäëîãïáÜ*ñë*ÉííáÉî*ïäëóéÜ*·*ôäáîáòáî*íîÉÖñ ãÖÉé*·*âãòá*ñäá*

*ààãÖá*ëà*ñäá**ëõÉé**ëèèãïïãëê*ôîãññáê*êëñãÖá*ëà*ñäá*àëééëôãêâ*èÉññáîï*Éï*ïëëê*

Éï*íëïïãÑéá*„*

*

251

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *s*w*

**É** Éêõ*ãïïóáï*ëà*éÉô*ôäãÖä*ñäÉñ*íáîïëê*íîëíëïáï*ñë*îÉãïá*‚*

*

**Ñ** Éêõ*íîëÖáÜóîÉé*èÉññáî*ñäÉñ*íáîïëê*íîëíëïáï*ñë*îÉãïá***ãêÖéóÜã êâ*·*Ñõ*ôÉõ*

ëà*áöÉèíéá*ëêéõ*·*Éêõ*ëÑåáÖñãëêï*ñë*áòãÜáêÖá*·*ÖëêàãÜáêñãÉéãñõ*ãï ïóáï*·*êëê*Ê

íóÑéãÖÉñãëê*ÖëêÖáîêï*ÉêÜ*ÉÜèãêãïñîÉñãòá*ÉîîÉêâáèáêñï***‰*

*

*w*t*‰ *äá*ôîãññáê*êëñãÖá*ïäëóéÜ*ãÜáêñãàõ*ñäá*ãïïóá*ëî*èÉññáî*ñë*Ñá *îÉãïáÜ*ÉêÜ*ïáñ*ëóñ*

É*ïäëîñ*ëóñéãêá*ëà*ñäá*ïóÑèãïïãëêï*ñäá*íáîïëê*ôãïäáï*ñë*èÉçá*ãê *îáéÉñãëê*ñë*

ñäÉñ*èÉññáî*ëî*ãïïóá*‰*

*

Final submissions

*

*w*u*‰ *ê*Üóá*Öëóîïá*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*ãï*éãçáéõ*ñë*èÉçá*àóîñäáî*Üãî áÖñãëêï*ãê*îáéÉñãëê*

ñë*ñäá*èÉçãêâ*ëà*àãêÉé*ïóÑèãïïãëêï*ñë*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*‰**äá**ëè èãïïãëêáî*

ôãéé* èëïñ* éãçáéõ* èÉçá* ÜãîáÖñãëêï* àëî* ñäá* àãéãêâ* ëà* ôîãññáê* ïóÑè ãïïãëêï*‰* *äá*

ìóáïñãëê*ëà*ôäáñäáî*ëîÉé*ïóÑèãïïãëêï*Éîá*îáìóãîáÜ*ãï*ñë*Ñá*Üáñá îèãêáÜ*ãê*Üóá*

Öëóîïá*·*ÉêÜ*ñäáîá*ãï*É*íëïïãÑãéãñõ*ñäÉñ*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*ôãéé*ñ Éçá*ñäá*òãáô*ñäÉñ*

ëîÉé*ïóÑèãïïãëêï*Éîá*êëñ*îáìóãîáÜ*‰**Éòãêâ*îáâÉîÜ*ñë*ñäá*îáíëîñã êâ*ñãèáàîÉèá*

ãê*îáïíáÖñ*ëà*ñäãï**ëõÉé**ëèèãïïãëê*·*ãñ*ãï*áöíáÖñáÜ*ñäÉñ*ñäáîá* ôãéé*ëêéõ*Ñá*É*

éãèãñáÜ* ñãèá* ÉòÉãéÉÑéá* ñë* ãêñáîáïñáÜ* íÉîñãáï* ñë* àãêÉéãïá* ñäáãî* ôîãññáê*

ïóÑèãïïãëêï* àëééëôãêâ* ñäá* Öëèíéáñãëê* ëà* ñäá* ñÉçãêâ* ëà* áòãÜáêÖá* Ñõ* ôÉõ* ëà*

íóÑéãÖ*äáÉîãêâï*‰***äãï*ãêÜãÖÉñãëê*äÉï*Ñááê*âãòáê*ãê*ëîÜáî*ñë*Éï ïãïñ*ãêñáîáïñáÜ*

íÉîñãáï*ãê*íéÉêêãêâ*ÉêÜ*íîáíÉîãêâ*Éêõ*ôîãññáê*ïóÑèãïïãëêï*‰*

26 March 2014

The Honourable John Dyson Heydon AC QC

252

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *s*x*

*

APPLICATION FOR AUTHORISATION TO APPEAR

Part 1 - Name and contact details * Name:* ***Éèá*ëà*ñäá*íáîïëê*ïááçãêâ*ÉóñäëîãïÉñãëê*ñë*ÉííáÉî*·*ëî*ñäá*êÉ èá** * ëà*ñäá*íáîïëê*ôäë*íîëíëïáï*ñë*Ñá*îáíîáïáêñáÜ*Ñõ*É*éáâÉé** * íîÉÖñãñãëêáî***Éï*ñäá*ÖÉïá*èÉõ*Ñá***** Address:

Contact person: Telephone: Fax: Email:

* Part 2 - Name and contact details of legal practitioner

Name: Address: Telephone: Fax: Email:

Details of instructing solicitors: Firm name: Contact person: Address: Telephone: Fax: Email: * Part 3 - Terms of reference

Which particular term or terms of reference does the person in question claim to have an interest? * * * * * * * *

253

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *s*y*

* * * Part 4 - Nature and extent of interest

In respect of each term of reference identified in answer to Part 3, what is the nature and extent of the person’s asserted interest in that matter?

* * * * *

Part 5 - Assistance to the Commission * (a) Will the person appearing or to be represented be in a better position to assist the Commission if authorisation to appear is granted? If so, how?

* * * *

(b) Please specify precisely the nature and extent of any assistance that will be provided to the Commission if authorisation is granted?

* * *

(c) Will the person (or in the case of a legal practitioner seeking authorisation to appear for a person, both the practitioner and the party he or she is representing) agree to follow the published practice directions, follow the directions of, and rulings from, the Commissioner during the conduct of the inquiry and not disrupt or disturb the proceedings, or attempt to do so?

*

* * * * *

254

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *s*z*

* *

Part 6 - Conflicts

In the case of an application for authorisation for a legal practitioner to appear, does the practitioner (and in the case of Counsel, his or her instructing solicitors) act for any other person in relation to the Commission and the matters it is inquiring into? If so, what information can be provided to the Commission such as to enable the Commissioner to determine whether it is appropriate for authorisation to be granted?

* * * * * * *

Part 7 - Submissions *

What submissions do you wish to make, and what other matters do you wish to rely upon, in support of the application for authorisation? * * * * * * * Part 8 -Court Book

Do you agree that, if authorisation is granted, you will not make available your log on access details to Court Book to any other person who has not been granted log on access, and will not otherwise facilitate persons who have not been granted log on access to Court Book obtaining access to Court Book? * * * * *

255

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *s*{*

If authorisation is granted, do you agree that, save in respect of documents which have already been tendered at a public hearing, you will not cause or permit the contents of documents on Court Book to be published to any persons other than persons to whom the Commission has granted log on access to Court Book as recorded in a register of such persons kept by the Commission, and will not use those documents for purposes other than in connection with the proceedings of the Royal Commission? * * * * * *

Please note that the Commission may seek further information from applicants for authorisation to appear prior to any decision being made as to whether such authorisation will be granted.

256

APPENDIX 18 - PRACTICE DIRECTION 2

257

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *s*

*

PRACTICE DIRECTION 2

*

* s* ‰ *äãï* *îÉÖñãÖá* *ëñá* Éííéãáï* ãê* íéÉÖá* ëà* íÉîÉâîÉíäï* * v* w* ñë* * v* z* ëà* *îÉÖñãÖá*

*ãîáÖñãëê**s*ãê*îáïíáÖñ*ëà*ñäá*íóÑéãÖ*äáÉîãêâï*ñë*ôäãÖä*íÉîÉâîÉí ä**t*Ñáéëô*

Éííéãáï*‰***Éòá*àëî*ñäãï*ÖäÉêâá*·**îÉÖñãÖá**ãîáÖñãëê**s*ôãéé*Öëêñã êóá*ñë*Éííéõ*ñë*Ééé*

äáÉîãêâï*ãê*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*‰***

*

*t*‰ *ñ*èÉõ*Ñá*ÉííîëíîãÉñá*ãê*ïëèá*ãêïñÉêÖáï*àëî*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*·*ã ê*ÉÜòÉêÖá*ëà*É*

ôãñêáïï* Ñáãêâ* ÖÉééáÜ* ñë* âãòá* áòãÜáêÖá* Éñ* É* íóÑéãÖ* äáÉîãêâ* ** Witness A***·* ñë*

íîëòãÜá* ñë* íáîïëêï* ôäë* èÉõ* Ñá* ïóÑïñÉêñãÉééõ* ÉêÜ* ÜãîáÖñéõ* ãêñáîá ïñáÜ* ãê*

*ãñêáïï***Ôï*áòãÜáêÖá*·*É*ïñÉñáèáêñ*ëà*ñäá*áòãÜáêÖá**ãñêáïï***ãï* éãçáéõ*ñë*âãòá*·*

ñëâáñäáî*ôãñä*ñäá*ÜëÖóèáêñï*ñë*ôäãÖä**ãñêáïï***ôãéé*îáàáî*** Statement***‰*

*

*u*‰ *ê*ñäá*áòáêñ*íÉîÉâîÉíä**t*Éííéãáï*·*ñäá**ààãÖá*ëà*ñäá**ëèèãïïãë ê*ôãéé*·*ôäáîá*

îáÉïëêÉÑéõ*íîÉÖñãÖÉÑéá*·*ïáêÜ*ñë*íáîïëêï***ëî*ñäáãî*éáâÉé*îáíîáïá êñÉñãòáï***ôäë*

ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*ÖëêïãÜáîï*èÉõ*Ñá*ïóÑïñÉêñãÉééõ*ÉêÜ*ÜãîáÖñéõ*ãêñá îáïñáÜ*ãê*ñäá*

áòãÜáêÖá*ëà**ãñêáïï***„*

*

**É** êëñãÖá*ñäÉñ*ñäãï**îÉÖñãÖá**ãîáÖñãëê**t*Éííéãáï*‚*

*

**Ñ** ñäá**ñÉñáèáêñ*‚**

* **Ö** ÜãîáÖñãëêï*Éï*ñë*ñäá*ñãèá*àëî *ÖëèíéãÉêÖá*ôãñä*íÉîÉâîÉíä**w*Ñá éëô*‚*ÉêÜ*

* **Ü** ÜáñÉãéï* Éï* ñë* ñäá* ÜÉñá* ÉêÜ* éëÖÉñãëê* ëà* ñäá* äáÉîãêâ* ëà* ñäá* áòãÜáêÖá* ëà*

*ãñêáïï***ÉêÜ*ïóÖä*ëñäáî*áòãÜáêÖ á*Éï*ïäÉéé*Ñá*ÉÜÜóÖáÜ*Ñõ*òãîñóá *ëà*ñäá*

ëíáîÉñãëê*ëà*íÉîÉâîÉíäï**w*ÉêÜ**x*Ñáéëô*‰*

*

*v*‰ *ê*ñäá*áòáêñ*íÉîÉâîÉíä**t*Éííéãáï*·*ñäá**ààãÖá*ëà*ñäá**ëèèãïïãë ê*ôãéé*·*ôäáîá*

îáÉïëêÉÑéõ*íîÉÖñãÖÉÑéá*·*ÉÜòáîñãïá*Ñõ*ôÉõ*ëà*íóÑéãÖÉñãëê*ëê*ãñï* ôáÑïãñá*ñäá*

àÉÖñ*ñäÉñ*ñäáîá*ôãéé*Ñá*É*íóÑéãÖ*äáÉîãêâ*ÉêÜ*ñäá*âáêáîÉé*ïóÑåáÖ ñ*èÉññáî*ëà*ñäÉñ*

258

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *t*

äáÉîãêâ*‰* * *êõ* íáîïëê* ôäë* ÖëêïãÜáîï* ñäÉñ* ñäáõ* èÉõ* Ñá* ïóÑïñÉêñãÉé éõ* ÉêÜ*

ÜãîáÖñéõ*ãêñáîáïñáÜ*ãê*ñäá*ïóÑåáÖñ*èÉññáî*ëà*ñäá*ÉÜòáîñãïáÜ*äáÉ îãêâ*** Matters***

èÉõ* Éííéõ* ãê* ôîãñãêâ* ñë* ñäá* * ààãÖá* ëà* ñäá* *ëèèãïïãëê* àëî* ÉÖÖáïï * ñë* ñäá*

*ñÉñáèáêñ*‰***äá*ÉííéãÖÉñãëê*ïäëóéÜ*ãÜáêñãàõ*ñäá*íáîïëê*ÉêÜ*ñäá* êÉñóîá*ÉêÜ*

áöñáêñ*ëà*ñäáãî*ãêñáîáïñ*ãê*ñäá**Éññáîï*‰***à*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*ãï* ïÉñãïàãáÜ*ñäÉñ*ãñ*ãï*

ÉííîëíîãÉñá*ñë*Üë*ïë*ãê*Ééé*ëà*ñäá*ÖãîÖóèïñÉêÖáï*·*ãñ*ôãéé*íîëòãÜá*É*Öëíõ*ëà*ñäá*

*ñÉñáèáêñ*ãê*ôäëéá*ëî*ãê*íÉîñ*ñë*ñäá*ÉííéãÖÉêñ*‰*

*

*w*‰ *êõ* íáîïëê* ôãïäãêâ* ñë* Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêá* *ãñêáïï* ** ÉêÜ*ëî* äÉòá* Éêõ * ëñäáî*

áòãÜáêÖá*íéÉÖáÜ*Ñáàëîá*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*ãê*îáïíáÖñ*ëà*ñäá**Éññáîï *èóïñ*àãéá*

ôãñä*ñäá**ààãÖá*ëà*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*Ñõ*êë*éÉñáî*ñäÉê*ñäá*ÜÉñá*ïíá ÖãàãáÜ*ãê*ñäá*

ÜãîáÖñãëêï*îáàáîîáÜ*ñë*ãê *íÉîÉâîÉíä**u**Ö***ÉÑëòá*„*

*

**É** ãê*ñäá*ÖÉïá*ëà*ÜëÖóèáêñÉîõ*áòãÜáêÖá*·*ñäá*ÜëÖóèáêñï*‚*

*

* *Ñ* * ãê* ñäá* ÖÉïá* ëà* ëîÉé* áòãÜáêÖá* ·* É* ïãâêáÜ* ïñÉñáèáêñ* àîëè* ñäá* ôã ñêáïï* ãê*

ìóáïñãëê*ïáññãêâ*ëóñ*·*ãê*ÜáñÉãé*·*ñäá*íîáÖãïá*áòãÜáêÖá*ñäÉñ*ôãñê áïï*ôëóéÜ*

âãòá*ëê*ëÉñä*ëî*ÉààãîèÉñãëê*ãà*ÖÉééáÜ*Éï*É*ôãñêáïï*** Other Witness***‚*

*

* *Ö* * Éêõ* ÉêÜ* Ééé* ïóÑèãïïãëêï* Éï* ñë* ôäõ* ñäá* áòãÜáêÖá* ïë* ãÜáêñãàãáÜ* ÉÑëòá*

ïäëóéÜ*Ñá*íéÉÖáÜ*Ñáàëîá*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*‚*

*

**Ü** É*ÜëÖóèáêñ*ãÜáêñãàõãêâ*·*ôãñä*íîáÖãïãëê*·*ñäá*ñëíãÖï*ãê*îáïíáÖ ñ*ëà*ôäãÖä*ñäÉñ*

íáîïëê* ëî* äãï* ëî* äáî* éáâÉé* îáíîáïáêñÉñãòá* ôãïäáï* ñë* Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêá*

*ãñêáïï***‚*

*

**á** Éêõ* ÉêÜ* Ééé* ïóÑèãïïãëêï* Éï* ñë* ôäõ* ñäá* íáîïëê* ëî* ñäá* íáîïëê*Ôï * éáâÉé*

îáíîáïáêñÉñãòá* ïäëóéÜ* Ñá* íáîèãññáÜ* ñë* Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêá* *ãñêáïï* ** ã ê*

îáïíáÖñ* ëà* ñäá* ñëíãÖï* ïë* ãÜáêñãàã áÜ*·* ãêÖéóÜãêâ*Ñõ* îáàáîáêÖá* ñë* **Éèëêâïñ*

ëñäáî* ñäãêâï*** ñäá* êÉñóîá* ÉêÜ* áöñáêñ* ëà* Éêõ* ÜãààáîáêÖáï* Ñáñôááê* ñäá*

259

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *u*

ÉêñãÖãíÉñáÜ*áòãÜáêÖá*ëà*ñäá**ãñêáïï***ÉêÜ*ñäá*Öëêñáêñï*ëà*É*ÜëÖ óèáêñ*ëî*

ïñÉñáèáêñ*ãÜáêñãàãáÜ*ãê***É***ÉêÜ***Ñ***ÉÑëòá*‰*

**íáîïëê*ôäë*éëÜâáï*Éêõ*ïóÖä*èÉñáîãÉé*ãï*îáàáîîáÜ*ñë*Ñáéëô*Éï*É ê* Applicant*‰*

*

*x*‰ *êéáïï* ñäá* *ëèèãïïãëêáî* ëñäáîôã ïá* Üáñáîèãêáï*·* Éñ* ñäá* äáÉîãêâ* ïÖäáÜóéáÜ*

ÉêÜ*êëñãàãáÜ*ãê*ÉÖÖëîÜÉêÖá*ôãñä*íÉîÉâîÉíä**u**Ü***ÉÑëòá*„*

*

**É** *ãñêáïï****ôãéé*Ñá*ÖÉééáÜ*ÉêÜ* áöÉèãêáÜ*Ñõ**ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*‚ *

*

**Ñ** ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*ôãéé*íáîèãñ*Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêÉñãëê*ëà**ãñêáïï*** Ñõ*ïóÖä*

íáîïëêï*·*ñë*ïóÖä*áöñáêñ*ÉêÜ*ãê*ïóÖä*ëîÜáî*Éï*äá*ÖëêïãÜáîï*Éííîë íîãÉñá*‚*

*

**Ö** *ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*ôãéé*îá*ÊáöÉèãêá**ãñêáïï***‚*

*

**Ü** Éêõ* *ííéãÖÉêñ* èóïñ*·* ãà* ñäáõ* ôãïä* ñë* íéÉÖá* ñäá* áòãÜáêÖá* ëà* ñäá* *ñäáî*

*ãñêáïï*Ñáàëîá*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëê*·*ÉîîÉêâá*àëî*ñäá**ñäáî**ãñêáïï*ñë *ÉññáêÜ*

Éñ*ñäá*äáÉîãêâ*àëî*ñäÉñ*íóîíëïá*‚*

*

**á** Éêõ**ñäáî**ãñêáïï*ôäë*ãï*èÉÜá*ÉòÉãéÉÑéá*ãê*ÉÖÖëîÜÉêÖá*ôãñä*** Ü***ÉÑëòá*

ôãéé*Ñá*ÖÉééáÜ*ñë*âãòá*áòãÜáêÖá*Ñ õ**ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*·*ôãéé*Ñá*É ïçáÜ*ñë*ÉÜëíñ*

äãï*ëî*äáî*ïñÉñáèáêñ*àãéáÜ*ãê*ÉÖÖëîÜÉêÖá*ôãñä*íÉîÉâîÉíä**w*ÉÑëòá *·*ÉêÜ*ôãéé*

Ñá*áöÉèãêáÜ*Ñõ**ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*‚*

*

**à** ôäáîá* ñäá* *ëèèãïïãëêáî* ñäãêçï* ãñ* ÉííîëíîãÉñá*·* äá* ôãéé* íáîèãñ **

áöÉèãêÉñãëê*ëà*ñäá**ñäáî**ãñêáïï*Ñõ*ñäá**ííéãÖÉêñ*ôäë*àãéáÜ*ñäá **ñäáî*

*ãñêáïï*Ô* ïñÉñáèáêñ* **ëî* ñäÉñ* *ííéãÖÉêñ*Ôï* éáâÉé* îáíîáïáêñÉñãòá*** ë ê* Éêõ*

èÉññáîï*ïáñ*ëóñ*ãê*ñäá*ôãñêáïï*Ô*ïñÉñáèáêñ*ñäÉñ*äÉòá*êëñ*Ñááê*Üá Ééñ*ôãñä*

ñäîëóâä**ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*Ôï*áöÉèãêÉñãëê*‚*

*

260

*

*

*

****ëö**t*v*y*y*·********·******t*r*r*s**áéáíäëêá**s*z*r*r**t*t**s*t**v*w* ôôô*‰ñîÉÜáóêãëêîëõÉéÖëèèãïïãëê*‰âëò*䃗 *******{*t**x*x*s**s*t*v**v*u*x* *v*

**â** ëñäáî*íÉîñãáï*ôäë*Éîá*íáîèãññáÜ*ñë*Öîëïï*ÊáöÉèãêá*ñäá**ñäáî** ãñêáïï*ôãéé*

Üë*ïë*‚*

*

**ä** ñäá* *ííéãÖÉêñ* **ëî* ñäá* *ííéãÖÉêñ*Ôï* éáâÉé* îáíîáïáêñÉñãòá*** ôãéé * îá*ÊáöÉèãêá*

ñäá**ñäáî**ãñêáïï*‚*

*

**ã** *ëóêïáé**ïïãïñãêâ*ôãéé*îá*ÊáöÉèãêá*ñäá**ñäáî**ãñêáïï*‰*

*

*y*‰ *äáîá*ñäá**ëèèãïïãëêáî*ñäãêçï* ãñ*ÉííîëíîãÉñá*·*äá*èÉõ*Üãïíáêïá *ôãñä*ëî*òÉîõ*

ñäáïá*íîÉÖñãÖáï*ÉêÜ*íîëÖáÜóîáï*‰*

*

261

262

APPENDIX 19 - PRACTICE DIRECTION 3

263

GPO Box 2477, SYDNEY, NSW 2001 Telephone 1800 22 12 45 www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au ABN 92 661 124 436

PRACTICE DIRECTION 3

1. This Practice Note applies in place of paragraphs 45 to 48 of Practice Direction 1 in

respect of the public hearings to which paragraph 2 below applies. Save for this

change, Practice Direction 1 will continue to apply to all hearings in the Commission.

2. On 11, 15 and 16 September 2014 the Office of the Commission proposes to hold

public hearings into the operations of the following relevant entities:

a. IR 21 Limited;

b. Industry 2020 Pty Ltd; and

c. Building Industry 2000 Limited.

3. In conducting the hearings referred to in paragraph 2, persons who appear to have

knowledge of the operations and finances of those entities will be examined by

Counsel Assisting about such matters. There will be no statements tendered on

behalf of any witness called by the Commission.

4. Those authorised to appear at those hearings may make oral application for

authorisation to cross-examine those examinees on the day, and such applications

(and any other applications) will be dealt with when made.

5. Where the Commissioner thinks it appropriate, he may dispense with or vary these

practices and procedures.

4 September 2014

The Honourable John Dyson Heydon AC QC

264

APPENDIX 20 - PRACTICE DIRECTION 9

265

266

APPENDIX 21 - PRACTICE DIRECTION 13

267

PRACTICE DIRECTION 13

1. This Practice Direction applies in place of paragraphs 45 to 48 of Practice Direction 1

in respect of the public hearings to which paragraph 2 below applies. Save for this

change, Practice Direction 1 will continue to apply to all hearings in the Commission.

2. Between 12 and 23 October 2015 the Commission proposes to hold further public

hearings into the Australian Workers Union including its dealings in relation to:

a. the Thiess John Holland Joint Venture Pty Ltd and the construction of the

Eastlink Toll Road;

b. ACI/O-I Glass Packaging;

c. Downer EDI Pty Ltd and the Yolla Gas Offshore Platform;

d. Cleanevent Pty Ltd;

e. Unibuilt Pty Ltd;

f. Winslow Constructors Pty Ltd; and

g. Chiquita Mushrooms Pty Ltd.

3. In conducting the hearings referred to in paragraph 2, persons who appear to have

knowledge of that matter will be examined by Counsel Assisting.

4. Prior to the hearings referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission will where possible

make statements or transcripts of evidence available in advance to persons

substantially and directly interested in the evidence of the witnesses. Any such

statements or transcripts will be made available in the Electronic Court Room.

GPO Box 2477, SYDNEY, NSW 2001 Telephone 1800 22 12 45 www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au ABN 92 661 124 436 268

2

5. Those authorised to appear at the public hearing may make application to examine

any witness giving evidence during the hearings referred to in paragraph 2 above,

or any witness who has previously given evidence in the Commission in respect of

the matters referred to in paragraph 2. Any such applications should be made in

writing no later than 2 October 2015 and include a brief outline of the proposed

topics for examination of each witness.

6. Where the Commissioner thinks it appropriate, he may dispense with or vary

these practices and procedures.

The Honourable John Dyson Heydon AC QC

25 September 2015

269

270

APPENDIX 22 - LIST OF WITNESSES AND REPRESENTATIVES

271

Last name

First name

Case study

Appearance dates

Legal representatives

1

Addamo

Jelica

AWU (VIC)

21/10/15

Herman Borenstein QC, Instructed by Kamal Farouque of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

2

Agostinelli

John

HSU (Vic No 1 Branch, Vic No 3 Branch)

17/6/14; 27/8/14

3

Agostino

Joseph

AWU (VIC)

18/9/14

4

Ainsworth

Leigh

AWU (VIC)

9/9/14

5

Aird

Sarah

HSU (Vic No 1 Branch)

16/9/14

6

Aleksic

Nebojsa (Ned)

CFMEU (ACT)

29/7/15

7

Alex

Athina

CFMEU (NSW)

30/6/15

On an amicus basis: John Hajje of John B Hajje & Associates

8

Alex

George

CFMEU (NSW)

24/6/15, 26/6/15

David Dalton SC, instructed by John Hajje of John B Hajje & Associates.

From 26/7/15: David Weinberger and Mitchell Davis of counsel, instructed by Randa Alamein of Alamein and Co. Lawyers

9

Alex

Nectaria

CFMEU (NSW)

30/6/15

John Hajje of John B Hajje & Associates

10

Allameddine

Shalee-Nicole

AWU (VIC)

29/5/15

11

Anderson

Christopher

ETU (VIC)

5/9/14

Neil Clelland QC, instructed by Holding Redlich Lawyers

12

Angelis

James

CFMEU (NSW)

13/8/15

Nicholas Owens of counsel and Christopher Botsman of counsel instructed by Colleen Platford of Gilbert + Tobin Lawyers

13

Angus

Zoe

AWU (National office)

20/10/15

Herman Borenstein QC, Instructed by Kamal Farouque of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

14

Armstrong

Troy

CFMEU (ACT)

20/7/15

15

Arona

Clive

CFMEU (ACT)

15/7/15, 27/7/15

Steven Gavagna of Goodman Law

272

Last name

First name

Case study

Appearance dates

Legal representatives

16

Aslan

Paul

TWU WA

11/5/15

James Glissan QC and Mark Gibian of counsel, instructed by Michael Doherty and Mia Pantechis of Maurice Blackburn

17

Asmar

Diana

AWU & HSU (Vic No 1 Branch)

26/8/14 (S)

Anthony Isaacs

18

Asmar

Diana

HSU

26/8/14; 19/9/14

Remy Van De Wiel QC & Mark Champion of counsel, instructed by Koutsantoni & Associates Lawyers

19

Atkin

David

CFMEU (Cbus) (NSW)

23/10/14, 10/6/15, 11/6/15

Phillip Crutchfield QC, Chris Caleo QC and Georgie Coleman of counsel, instructed by Howard Rapke of Holding Redlich

20

Atkinson

Lee

HSU (Vic No 1 Branch)

19/9/14; 28/11/14 (S)

21

Barr

Matthew

CFMEU

2/9/14

John Fernon SC, instructed by Gadens Lawyers

22

Barrack

Justine

CFMEU (T)

03/10/14 (S)

23

Barrios

Jose

CFMEU

1/9/14

Ian Latham of counsel, instructed by Turner Freeman Lawyers

24

Barron

Glen

TWU WA

11/5/15

James Glissan QC and Mark Gibian of counsel, instructed by Michael Doherty and Mia Pantechis of Maurice Blackburn

25

Bartlett

Joseph

CFMEU (ACT)

21/7/15

26

Bassil

Anthonies

CFMEU (ACT)

13/7/15

27

Bastemeyer

John

CFMEU (QLD)

3/9/14

28

Battye

Mark

CFMEU (ACT)

28/7/15

29

Beachey

Sam

AWU

21/11/14 (S)

30

Beaumont

Micah

CFMEU (ACT)

22/7/15

David Chin of counsel, instructed by Michael Will of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

31

Begic (VIC)

Sakib

CFMEU (VIC)

18/9/14

32

Beibich

Mark

TWU WA

11/5/15

James Glissan QC and Mark Gibian of counsel, instructed by Michael Doherty and Mia Pantechis of Maurice Blackburn

33

Belan

Darack (Derrick)

NUW (NSW)

10/11/15

Maria Gerace of counsel, instructed by Andrew Lloyd of Sachs Gerace Broome Lawyers

34

Belan

Nicklouse (Nick)

NUW (NSW)

5/11/15

Andrew Joseph and Catherine Lin of counsel, instructed by Ersel Akpinar of NUW Lawyers

35

Bellear

Kaye

CFMEU (NSW) (Funds)

10/8/15

Ian Latham of counsel, instructed by David Taylor of Turner Freeman

273

Last name

First name

Case study

Appearance dates

Legal representatives

36

Berger

John

TWU (Vic/Tas)

2/7/14; 19/8/14

James Glissan QC and Mark Gibian of counsel, instructed by Michael Doherty and Mia Pantechis of Maurice Blackburn; James Glissan instructed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

37

Betts

Neville

ETU NSW

30/4/15

Ingmar Taylor SC and Oshie Fagir of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

38

Biagini

Peter

TWU/McLean Forum

21/8/14

James Glissan ESM QC & Mark Gibian of counsel, instructed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

39

Blair

Phillip

CFMEU (QLD)

23/9/15

John Agius SC and Anthony Slevin of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

40

Blandthorn

John-Paul

AWU (VIC)

3/6/15, 20/10/15

Dean Guidolin of counsel, instructed by Mark Sturges of Matthew White & Associates

41

Blewitt

Ralph

AWU (VIC)

12/5/14; 13/5/14

Robert Galbally of Galbally Rolfe Lawyers

42

Boddington

Joseph

CFMEU (QLD)

02/9/14 (S)

43

Boglis

Tom

CFMEU (VIC)

29/10/15 (S)

44

Bogunovic

Zoran

CFMEU (ACT)

2/9/14

John Agius SC, Anthony Slevin and David Sulan of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

45

Bolano

Marco

HSU (Vic No 1 Branch)

16/6/14; 31/10/14 (S)

46

Bonnici

Michael

CFMEU (VIC)

18/9/14

47

Borgeest

Toby

HSU (Vic No 3 Branch)

27/8/14

48

Bosh

George

CFMEU (QLD)

18/9/15 (S)

Noel Barbi of N R Barbi Solicitors

49

Bourner

Ian

CFMEU (QLD)

3/9/14

50

Bracegirdle

Paul

TWU /TWU Super

23/6/14

51

Bradshaw

Hollie

CFMEU (QLD)

22/9/15

John Agius SC and Anthony Slevin of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

52

Brady

Roslyn

NUW (LUCRF)

11/9/14 (S)

Andrew Maher, HR Legal

53

Braggins

Ryden

CFMEU

8/7/14 (S)

54

Bressani

Guido

MUA

29/9/14

Nicholas Ellery of Corrs Chambers Westgarth lawyers

55

Brett

Kevin

ETU NSW

30/4/15 (S)

Ingmar Taylor SC and Oshie Fagir of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

56

Brick

David

AWU (VIC)

29/5/15 (S)

Assisted by Christopher Tuttiett, Legal counsel, BMD Group

274

Last name

First name

Case study

Appearance dates

Legal representatives

57

Brien

Michael

ETU NSW

28/4/15

Ingmar Taylor SC and Oshie Fagir of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

58

Broadley

David

CEPU (ACT)

23/7/15

Brendan Docking and Ahmad Moutasallem of counsel, instructed by A Grayson and Enrico Burgio of Maurice Blackburn

59

Brown

Christopher

HSU

27/8/14; 31/10/14 (S)

60

Buhin

Ante

CFMEU (VIC)

17/9/14

61

Buhin

Zeljko

CFMEU (VIC)

17/9/14

62

Bulum

Ivan

CFMEU (ACT)

14/7/15

63

Burgmann

Clint

CFMEU (ACT)

21/7/15

64

Burns

Michael

TWU/ McLean Forum

21/8/14

Bill McNally of McNally Jones Staff

65

Burton

Richard

TWU WA

13/5/15

Jamie Darams of counsel, instructed by Steve Heathcote Lawyers

66

Busch

Ian

CFMEU (QLD)

5/8/14; 6/8/14

67

Butera

Maria

CFMEU (Cbus) (NSW)

7/7/14, 23/10/14, 28/10/14, 11/6/15

Philip Crutchfield QC, Chris Caleo QC & Georgie Coleman of counsel, instructed by Holding Redlich Lawyers

.

From

14/10/14: Constantine Heliotis QC &

Louie Hawas of

counsel, instructed by Elizabeth Guerra

- Stolfa of Rigby Cooke

Lawyers

68

Butkus

Leanne

CFMEU (QLD)

23/9/15

John Agius SC and Anthony Slevin of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

69

Butler

Conan

CFMEU (QLD)

18/9/15 (S)

70

Butler

Edward

CFMEU (QLD)

18/9/15 (S)

71

Butler

Steve

ETU NSW

30/4/15

Ingmar Taylor SC and Oshie Fagir of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

72

Buttigieg

Mark

ETU NSW

30/4/15

Ingmar Taylor SC and Oshie Fagir of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

73

Byrnes

James

CFMEU (NSW)

3/10/14

Alastair McKeough of Whittens McKeough Lawyers

74

Cai

Xin Yi (Nick)

CFMEU (NSW)

2/10/15 (S)

75

Cain

Christopher

MUA

29/9/14

Steven Crawshaw SC, instructed by Slater & Gordon Lawyers

76

Cain

John

AWU (VIC)

9/9/14

77

Cambridge

Ian

AWU (VIC)

10/6/14

275

Last name

First name

Case study

Appearance dates

Legal representatives

78

Cameron

Robert

CFMEU (QLD)

23/9/15

John Agius SC and Anthony Slevin of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

79

Campbell

Christine

AWU (VIC)

23/6/14

80

Caple

Desmond

CFMEU

8/7/14 (S)

81

Carruthers

Gary

ETU Vic

5/5/15

Herman Borenstein QC and Steven Moore QC, instructed Geoffrey Borenstein of ETU Victoria

82

Carter

Benjamin

CFMEU (QLD)

15/9/15

David Kent QC, instructed by Hall Payne Lawyers

83

Charlson

Leah

CFMEU

24/10/14

Miles Condon SC, instructed by Hall Payne Lawyers

84

Chatburn

Peter

CFMEU (NSW) (Funds)

11/8/15

Steven Amendola of Ashurst

85

Cheetham

Gary

CFMEU (VIC)

29/10/15

Nick Read of counsel, instructed by Philip Gardner of Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers

86

Chen

Michael

AWU (VIC)

21/10/15

Toby Borgeest of counsel, instructed by James Higgins of Slater and Gordon Lawyers

87

Chenoweth

Stephen

AWU (VIC)

15/9/14

88

Chiavaroli

Leigh

CFMEU (VIC)

8/7/14, 17/9/14

89

Chiavaroli

Peter

CFMEU (VIC)

8/7/14

90

Chippendale

Prema

AWU (VIC)

15/10/15 (S)

91

Churchman

Gregg

CFMEU (QLD)

4/9/14

John Agius SC, Anthony Slevin and David Sulan of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

92

Cifali

Ben

CFMEU (VIC)

18/9/14 (S)

93

Clare

Michelle

CFMEU (QLD)

23/9/15

John Agius SC and Anthony Slevin of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

94

Close

Peter

CFMEU (NSW)

4/9/14; 23/9/14

John Agius SC, Anthony Slevin and David Sulan of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

95

Codazzi

Danilo

MUA

29/9/14 (S)

David Parker of Ashurt Lawyers

96

Cohen

Michael

CFMEU (NSW)

1/9/14

Raymond Perkes of Gillis Delaney Lawyers

97

Cole

Katherine

LUCRF/ NUW

11/9/14

98

Collie

Jaqueline

CFMEU (QLD)

23/9/15, 24/9/15

John Agius SC and Anthony Slevin of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

99

Connell

Michael

AWU (VIC)

13/10/15

276

Last name

First name

Case study

Appearance dates

Legal representatives

100

Connolly

Michael

TWU WA

12/5/15

James Glissan QC and Mark Gibian of counsel, instructed by Michael Doherty and Mia Pantechis of Maurice Blackburn

101

Connolly

Scott

TWU/ McLean Forum

21/8/14

James Glissan ESM QC & Mark Gibian of counsel, instructed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

102

Considine

Colin

CFMEU (QLD)

15/9/15

103

Constable

Timothy

CFMEU (VIC)

18/9/14 (S)

104

Cook

Brian

HSU (Vic No 3 Branch)

27/8/14

John Tracey of counsel

105

Cooper

Neil

AWU (VIC)

15/10/15 (T)

106

Crittall

John

CFMEU (QLD)

5/8/14

107

Crofts

Mark

AWU (VIC)

23/6/14

108

Croghan

Natalie

CFMEU (QLD)

16/9/15

109

Crowder

Joanne

ETU NSW

27/4/15, 4/5/15

Ingmar Taylor SC and Oshie Fagir of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

110

Crumlin

Padraig (Paddy)

MUA

29/9/14 (S)

Steven Crawshaw SC, instructed by Slater & Gordon Lawyers

111

Cubban

Robyn

AWU (VIC)

28/5/15

112

Cummins

Roland

CFMEU (QLD)

22/9/14

John Agius SC, Anthony Slevin and David Sulan of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

113

Currey

Bradley

ETU NSW

28/4/15

John Dobson, of John C Dobson Solicitors

114

D’Apice

Laurie

TWU/TEACHO

4/7/14 (S)

115

Da Silva

Bernardo

CFMEU (ACT)

30/7/15

116

Daish

Clyde

CFMEU (ACT)

17/7/15, 1/9/15

117

Dalby

Shane

CFMEU (QLD)

14/9/15

118

Dalton

Paul

CFMEU (VIC)

9/7/14

119

Dalziel

Ian

NUW (NSW)

6/11/15

120

Darrouzet

Paul

AWU (VIC)

9/9/14

Andrew Mewing of McInnes Wilson Lawyers

121

Darveniza

Kaye

AWU (VIC)

10/9/14

122

Dastyari

Hon. Sam

ETU NSW

5/6/15 (S)

123

Davey

Anthony

CFMEU (ACT)

22/7/15

David Chin of counsel, instructed by Michael Will of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

277

Last name

First name

Case study

Appearance dates

Legal representatives

124

Davidson

Jo-Ann

TWU/McLean Forum

20/8/14

Nick Read of counsel, instructed by Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers

125

Davidson

Stacey

CFMEU (QLD)

23/9/15

John Agius SC and Anthony Slevin of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

126

Davis

Benedict (Ben)

AWU (VIC)

4/6/15

Herman Borenstein QC, Instructed by Kamal Farouque of Maurice Blackburn

127

Davis

John

TWU WA

12/5/15 (S)

James Glissan QC and Mark Gibian of counsel, instructed by Michael Doherty and Mia Pantechis of Maurice Blackburn

128

Dawson

Timothy

TWU WA

11/5/15

James Glissan QC and Mark Gibian of counsel, instructed by Michael Doherty and Mia Pantechis of Maurice Blackburn

129

DeLorenzo

Samuel

CFMEU (ACT)

28/7/15

Adam Morison of counsel

130

De Meulenaere

Joris

MUA

29/9/14

Ian Neil SC & Stephen Gardiner of counsel, instructed by Freehills Lawyers

131

Dean

George

AWU (VIC)

24/6/14

132

Debnath (VIC)

Nayan

AWU

29/5/15

133

Deegan

Michael

CFMEU (NSW) (Funds)

6/10/15

Steven Amendola of Ashurst

134

Dellevergini

Sharon

AWU (VIC)

21/10/15

135

Derouw

Anthony

CFMEU (ACT)

22/7/15

136

Di Giorgi

Fabio

MUA

29/9/14

Mark Cox of MDC Legal

137

Dick

Iaan

HSU (Vic No 3 Branch)

19/6/14; 27/8/14

138

Dixon (Vic No 3 Branch)

Reuben

HSU

17/6/14, 27/8/14

139

Dixon

Steve

CFMEU (NSW) (Funds)

12/8/15

Ian Latham of counsel, instructed by David Taylor of Turner Freeman Lawyers

140

Domitrovic

John

CFMEU (ACT)

24/7/15

NA

141

Donnelly

Charles

NUW (IR21)

11/9/14

Richard Attiwill QC and Aphrodite Kouloubaritsis of counsel instructed by Chris Brodrick of Holding Redlich

142

Donnelly

Stephen

HSU (Vic No 1 Branch)

19/6/14

278

Last name

First name

Case study

Appearance dates

Legal representatives

143

Donohue

Mark

HSU (Vic No 1 Branch)

19/9/14

144

Doust

Michael

ETU NSW

30/4/15 (S)

Ingmar Taylor SC and Oshie Fagir of counsel, instructed by Phillip Pasfield of Slater & Gordon

145

Dowton

Brent

CFMEU

3/9/14

146

Dudley

Darren

CFMEU

18/9/14 (S)

147

Dunbar

Deborah

TWU WA

12/5/15 (S)

James Glissan QC and Mark Gibian of counsel, instructed by Michael Doherty and Mia Pantechis of Maurice Blackburn

148

Dyson

Shane

TWU/ TWU (Vic/Tas)

19/8/14 (S)

149

Earle

Simon

MUA

29/9/14 (S)

William McNally of McNally Jones Lawyers

150

Eden

David

HSU (Vic No 1 Branch)

19/9/14

151

Edwards

Ralph

CFMEU (BI2000)