Mr Agostinelli appeared before the Commission in its previous hearings into the HSU.   He was the auditor for the No 3 Branch, Kathy Jackson's branch.

He appears today to be cross examined by Counsel for the HSU.

Mr Irving is examining Mr Agostinelli.

At 2.45 Mr Agostinelli was excused.

Mr Mylan's statement has been adopted and received into evidence.

He was asked about the search of boxes that were brought up from Melbourne to the HSU offices in Sydney.

He was asked if the purpose of the search was to find material that was adverse to Ms Jackson.

Mylan, "There was a, uhm, I was advised by Mr Williamson that we should review what the documents entailed."

He states that he can't recall if Mr Williamson had instructed that the review should be done for that purpose.

He was reminded of his preparation of a list of possible charges that he forwarded to the Victoria Police.

He agreed that he did that as a result of the search of hte boxes.

Mylan agrees that he did not allow Ms Jackson to see the charges before they were sent to Victoria Police.

Mylan says that he received Slater and Gordon's Philip Pasfield who told him (Mylan) that he should not tell Ms Jackson about the nature or content of the complaint to Victoria Police.

Counsel Assisting stated that he was about to play a telephone intercept between Mr Mylan and Michael Williamson.

Counsel for Mr Mylan stated that she wanted to see the warrant allowing the interception of the telephone call before she would agree to the intercept being played.   The Commissioner suggested that Mr Stoljar pursue another line of questioning in the interim while the warrant is being called up.

Mr Mylan was asked about a witness statement regarding the resignation of a Ms Carol Glenn.   He states that the resignation of Ms Glenn was negotiated by Gerard Hayes and Michael Williamson.

Mr Mylan agreed that Ms Glenn was paid the sum of $218,000 on her departure.

Ms Carol Glenn's statement was tendered and received into evidence.

Mr Mylan has not been excused pending resolution of the telephone intercept warrant.   He was told to be available to return to the witness box.

A statutory declaration of Dr Hillis was tendered and received into evidence.

A transcript of a telephone interview with Ms Marlene Kairouz was tendered and received into evidence.

Mr Jackson is being shown the transcript of a telephone interview he had with the Commission's staff prior to being shown the bank statements.

He said at the time, "I'd been thinking I'd run up bills in that campaign and I sought repayment.

He agrees that was his memory at the time.

He said, "I'm just simply advising you there were legal bills, there were campaign bills, there were costs I'd sought reimbursement for.

The Commissioner made clear that it was the $50,000 cheque that he referred to.

Jackson stated at the time that it was more than one conversation with Ms Jackson that led to the payment.

The transcript of the interview of Jeff Jackson wtih the Commission on 20 August 2014 has been received into evidence.

Mr Stoljar, "Is it the case that on 20 August your recollection was that the $50,000 was paid to you for campaign and legal expenses?

Jackson, "Yes, but when I read The Australian......

JACKSON HAS BEEN EXCUSED.

Mr Jackson has been sworn - he has described his 20 year history with the HSU.

He states he is currently unemployed.

He states that his professional relationship with Pauline Fegan broke down and there were "chapter and chapters" of allegations and legal proceedings.

Mr Jackson states that in 2007 he probably separated from Katherine Jackson.   he states that by March 2008 he would have definitely been separated.

Mr Jackson is being shown a bank cheque for $50,000 dated 24 March 2009.

Jeff Jackson states he does not recall the payment, but if pressed he thinks it might have been as part of a property settlement that was owed to him by Ms Jackson.

Jackson states he deposited the cheque into a bank account.

He does not recall what he withdrew the funds for.   He states he may have used the money for union processes.   he has no memory of what the withdrawals were for.

He recalls that he attempted to buy a car with some of the money but the sale fell through and he deposited the money back into his account.

He states that he has not had any conversations wtih Ms Jackson in the past month.

Mr Stoljar read a conversation between Ms Jackson and Jeff Jackson purported to have taken place in the last month.   Jeff Jackson said he may have had the conversation and he may not have.   When pressed he says he did not have the conversation.

Mr Jackson was taken to a series of financial transactions - he says he has no memory of receiving any payments.

Jeff Jackson says it is possible that he received payments in cash or cheques but he can't remember receiving any payments.

Jeff Jackson was asked if he knew the source of the funds that Kathy Jackson paid him.   he says he did not ask the source of the funds - he says he believed it was hers as far as he was aware.

He was shown a family court settlement - he says that he can't recall when and whether portions of those funds were actually paid.   He says Kathy and he probably came to their own arrangement as to what actually happened.  What we agreed to and what we presented to the court.....

He says the way his memory was he was guessing.

He says he was having more of a battle in relation to the values of the properties they held.   There was a cash difference between the properties and that may have been settled by the time the final settlement was reached.

He says his memory is probaby hazy about the details.

He says now that the $50,000 was partly for the property settlement.   His memory is not good at recalling any of that detail.

Jackson was asked why he was paid $58,000 from the Number 3 branch.

He states that the HSU was volatile - his role previously and around that time was supposedly to assist in providing stability through delegate ranks or people who held office in branches of the HSU.   He says he still played a role behind the scenes.   He says that between some costs that he had incurred and some costs that he was going to incur he put a cost on it and that is what he received.

Under questioning he says it may have been to do wtih costs not his wages or entitlements but his memory is hazy on this issue too.

He was asked why it was recorded as a loan in the number one or number three branch books.

He says he spent the $58,000 on a variety of political and union processes that we were involved with.   When asked who the we was he said the people that he was associated with in Victoria.

He is now shown a statement from the No 3 branch book keeper to Victoria Police explaining that the $58,000 payment was a final payout of wages and entitlements to Jeff Jackson.   Jeff Jackson agrees that the position is that he does not know one way or the other as he sits there today.

Mr Stoljar is now asking him about Neranto Pty Ltd.   Jackson agrees he was a director and secretary of that company.  He was shown some invoices from that company and asked about the services he provided - he said it was a range, report writing, research a variety of functions.

He was asked about his position in the HSU when Neranto No 10 provided those services - it was 1997 or 1998.   He says it is really pushing his memory - anything from an organiser, could have been any number of positions he held in the HSU.   Probably organiser or industrial officer.

Mr Stoljar has  completed his examination.

Mr Irving states his entitlement to cross examine flows from Mr Brown and the union's enquiries into where the union's money has gone.

Mr Pritchard says he wishes to cross examine - Mr Pritchard will go last and Mr Irving first.

Mr Irving is taking Mr Jackson through a chronology of his involvement with the HSU.

Jeff Jackson as shown a letter stating that he resigned as National Assistant Secretary in 2002 - he states that he had absolutely no recollection of ever having held that position.   he states that he would have put large sums of money on the bet that he had never held that position.   he states that it goes to prove how poor his memory is.

Mr Irving has completed his cross examination.   Mr Pritchard (for Kathy Jackson) is now cross examining Jackson.

Mr Pritchard is quizzing Mr Jackson about his health and memory - he asks how his memory has been affected.

Mr Jackson says that in his late 30s he had an illness that resulted in him being in a coma for 4 to 5 months.   He was advised that not only had an aging process taking place but that he would have ongoing memory problems arising from his illness.  He states in recent years he has in recent years suffered substantial loss of memory.  on top of that he states that he has diabetes and the medication he is on is well known for a side effect of loss of memory.

Jackson states that he has some recollection that the No 1 branch had to borrow money to pay his $58,000 in what could have been his entitlement to long service leave.   he agrees that the $58,000 may have in fact been for - in part or in mixture - payment for long service leave and other entitlements.

He agreed that the $50,000 may have been for political electioneering purposes - he states that until he looked at documents that were sent to him last week he had no recollection of the $50,000.   He says that anything is possible - he could not recall a $50,000 payment and he saw $50,000 into the classic account he says that to the best of his recollection he thinks it's probably for the property settlement - but is her sure?   No.

He says he had no immediate recall about the circumstances of the payment.   doing the best he can he reconstructed what may have happened.

Jackson states that he can't say yes or no as to whether or not the $50,000 was intended for the purpose of funding the legal actions the No 1 Branch employees were involved in with Ms Fegan in March 2009.   He can't say yes or no.

He recalls that there was considerable fundraising activity going on at the time and that Minter Ellison had to be paid.

He recalls that money was required for political and electioneering purposes in the latter part of 2008 and early 2009 involving action against Ms Fegan.   He says that wasn't much that wouldn't have been a cost during that period.

There was no reason that he wouldn't have asked Ms Jackson for some money during that period - he says that historically the No1 Branch was the large branch in the Victorian operation.   he says there was a massive history of shit-fights within the branch.   There were many times when the No 1 Branch sought financial assistance from the No 3 Branch.

He agrees that there is no reason why he wouldn't have asked for money - to go further it was most probable.   He says the answer is yes, she most probably would have said yes if he had asked.

He agrees it's probable he needed money for political and electioneering purposes.

He agrees it's probable he asked her.

He agrees it's probable she would have said yes.

Mr Pritchard puts to Mr Jackson the proposition that there was a conversation between Mr Jackson and Ms JACKSON in which he asked Ms Jackson for money for the No 1 Branch.

He can't deny that he asked her for $50, 000 for the purposes.

He can't deny that he did receive $50,000 for political and electioneering purposes for the No 1 Branch.   No I can't deny that.

Pritchard puts to Jackson that he did receive $50,000 from kathy Jackson - Jeff Jackson says that he would have had a discussion with her about the election process, yes.

Jeff Jackson says he can't deny what may have happened.   The money he would have received for election purposes would most likely have been put into his personal account, most likely yes.

If he had received money from Ms Jackson the money would have gone into that personal account - Jackson agrees yes.

He agrees that it is possible that withdrawals coming out of that account could well have been made for political and electioneering purposes.

Pritchard, "Is it possible you received $50,000 from ms Jackson for political electioneering purposes with the intention of drawing it down for political electoineering purposes and because the expenses did not arise as quickly as you thought you drew the money down for personal purposes.

Jackson, "Yes."

Jeff Jackson agrees that he ceased to live together as man and wife with Kathy Jackson on the Grand Prix weekend in 2008.

By March 2010 they came to formalise the property aspects of their legal separation.   The "Minutes of Consent Orders" was the product of many months of negotiations between their respective solicitors.

Jeff JACKSON agrees that Kathy Jackson paid for school fees and other payments during the period after they settled.   Jeff Jackson states that he read about the payment of the $50,000 in the Australian newspaper and that was his major source of information.   HE agrees that it's also possible that the payments reflected Kathy Jackson paying school fees and the like.

Jeff Jackson states that his memory is just not capable of remembering details.

He does not dispute that he spoke to Kathy Jackson in the past week or two.

He states that there was confusion in his memory at the time about the $50 and the $58K.

He agrees that it's possible that he had a conversation in the past couple of weeks with Ms Jackson about the $5oK being paid for the Fegan legal fees.

THE COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED UNTIL 2PM

Ms Dwyer is appearing for Mr Hull.

Bob Hull states he is a workforce consultant.   He has adopted his witness statement and it has been received into evidence.

He was the human resource manager at the Stockland centre until 1999.   For 25 years he has worked in IR and HR.

He worked for Williamson at the HSU.

By March 2012 he says the documents from the Victoria No 3 branch were held at the Sydney offices of the HSU.

Mr Gibson, Ms McMillan and Mr Mylan had access to the documents and the unit in which they were held.

Mr Hull says he doesn't know who went through the boxes.

Mr Hull says he is close to Michael Williamson.   he states he spoke to him a couple of days ago.

Counsel for Peter Mylan asked Mr Hull about his statement in which he says that it was Peter Mylan who did the Victorian office "clean up"   - she asks if it ws possible it was in fact Michael Williamson who gave the instructions rather than Mylan.   he said no.

Mr Hull has been excused.

The commission is adjourned until 11.45AM

Brian Reginald Cook, the owner of Service Industry Advisory Group has been sworn and has adopted his witness statement which was received into evidence.

The statement was written in response to a letter to Mr Cook's solicitors from the Commission.   The letter from the Commission to Mr Cook's lawyers has been received into evidence.

Mr Stoljar tendered a "court book volume 4" into evidence.   The Court Book has been added to Jackson MFI 4.

Mr Cook agrees that his firm SIAG was engaged by the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute in the dispute it had with the HSU and its employees.

Mr Gosterncnik and Mr Miller were engaged by Peter Mac directly.

Mr Cook established the framework for the negotiations - the primary negotiations from March to July of 2003 was himself.   On behalf of Peter Mac the CEO, senior research arm people involved, a Bernie Parsons, Christina Wilson and there would have been from time to time other people involved from research.

In paragraph 12, in around June 2003, the number 3 branch raised the matter of compensation being paid to the union.   To Cook's recollection they wanted reimbursement for legal costs and associated costs.

Stoljar, "Was the number 3 branch contemplating bringing litigation against the Peter Mac?"

Cook, "I was aware that the issue was there.   The original issue was that there was a compliance issue and with compliance you either resolve compliance or you litigate."

Stoljar "Did you have dealings with Ms Jackson?"
Cook, "Yes I did."

Stoljar, "Did you say - we understand that if this dispute isn't settled, we have to deal wtih both the employees claims for entitlements and the union's claim for damages.   However the board doesn't want the institute's reputation damaged."

Mr Cook says he does not recall having conversations with Ms Jackson in which he or she agreed to characterise the payment to the union as a reimbursement of expenses rather than a fine.

Mr Cook says he completed his role with Peter Mac long before any claim for reimbursement of expenses from the HSU.

He says the person he dealt with at Peter Mac was David Hillard, the CEO.

Mr Cook has been excused.

Mr Borgeest took the Affirmation and has made some minor changes to his witness statement.   He has adopted his statement as true and correct and it has been received into evidence.

He says that he had sole carriage at Slater and Gordon concerning the claims against the Peter MacCallum Centre - the client of Slater and Gordon was the Number 3 branch.

He states he sent one invoice - dated 29 october 2004.

Mr Stoljar has no further questions for Mr Borgeest.

He was excused.