Jason Morrison in today's Telegraph - how radical feminists are stopping criminals being punished for killing unborn babies. 

SO another drug affected killer driver goes unpunished for the death of an unborn baby — mostly because so many in our state parliament lack courage.

Surely it can’t be that hard to pass a law to prevent this blind spot in our criminal system? But once again ideology and twisted agendas stand in the way.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

A public hearing of the Royal Commission is scheduled to take place on Level 5 of 55 Market Street, Sydney on Tuesday 28 October 2014.

The witness list is:

Tuesday 28 October (12.00pm – 4.00pm)

• Maria Butera

Please note, this list may be subject to change.

The CBUS information

Lisa Zanatta has admitted that she physically provided this information to the NSW CFMEU.

The inclusion of private information according to the evidence of Maria Butera was something that happened on Zanatta’s own initiative.

Butera and Atkins had no involvement.

Parker did not ask for it.

1. Brian Fitzpatrick

In his evidence on July 15, 2014 Fitzpatrick says he initially rang Bob McWhinney in an attempt to obtain as much information on Liscon as possible. P41 line 29.

McWhinney apparently was concerned about the legality of what was requested and what was eventually e-mailed was not in the opinion of Parker sufficient. P 41 L46.

This information had been provided about July12 ,2013 or thereabouts. P42 L24.

Parker then said he was going to get it from “BUS”.

This was variously described as “Liz” has agreed to give us the lot;P43 L32; and 2 women are going to do it; P44 L7.

Paker’s PA Jennifer Glass was told to contact “Liz” and get her to send the information through her. P44 L13.

Butera in her evidence on October 23 provided the following information on Page 953.

 A. Lisa told me that she had all this information.

2

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. She did explain to me why she had actually spoken to

5 Anthony Walls about sending it to others.

6

7 Q. What did she say?

8 A. Well, she was concerned in particular that it had gone

9 to Bob McWhinney who had actually apparently asked for this

10 information previously but she had put a stop to it, and

11 that actually gave me some comfort. I mean to actually

12 stop another coordinator sending information with that

13 amount of personal detail gives me some comfort that,

14 you know, she was worried about that.

15

16 Q. It gives you comfort? You were concerned about her,

17 were you?

18 A. Well, she'd told me that there was a lot of personal

19 information in that spreadsheet.

This passage is making reference to the information passed to the NSW CFMEU by Zanatta.

This information had come about as a result of a phone call to Atkin on July 18, 2013 by Parker. As a result of this call Atkin had a discussion with Butera about Liscon.

It is interesting to note that his instructions were given verbally and not by e-mail as appears to have happened on other instances raised by the RC. See Butera P941.

Butera then “told” Zanatta that she wanted information around the “serious arrears” of Liscon. P944 L31.

Zanatta had rung Parker on July 18 obviously as a result of the above discussion.P945 L19.

Zanatta received the information on July 24 as a result of a request run on July 22. P946.

Therefore Zanatta had been involved in restraining the original provision of information by Mc Whinney on the obvious basis that it was illegal and yet approximately one week later after receiving instructions through Butera (after a conversation by Butera with Atkin) she has set in train the process that has produced the information in question and ultimately provided it to the CFMEU.

It would be reasonable to conclude that what had changed in the intervening period, to prompt the action she knew was illegal, and had previously prevented, was the intervention of her superiors and the conversation with Parker.

2. Butera

There is much that can be questioned about Butera’s testimony on October 23.

For example her follow up of the Grabski e-mail obviously involved the commencement of legal action against Liscon; P939;This was the effect of her direction to Zanatta through Noyes.

Her contention that Parkers request on July 18 did not raise in her mind that arrears information, had only a short period before that, been provided as a result of the Grabski e-mail is not believable.

The assertion that she had to give an experienced person like Zanatta instructions how to deal with arrears information is not believable.

It is much more likely that their meeting on July 25 to discuss how to proceed with the information was concerned with keeping the process concealed. P949 and 950.

This is the obvious inference from the e-mail from Zanatta to Butera on July 24.

 We now have the data requested by

34 Brian Parker.

35

36 I have spoken to Anthony for passing it on

37 to others without consent.

38

39 How would you like to proceed with the

40 information?

41

42 I'll catch up with you to discuss tomorrow

43 if you are available.

44

45 Thank you.

46

Page 946

Her reasons for not simply e-mailing the information to Parker (ie that Zanatta was speaking to him) is nonsensical. When the documents were delivered by Zanatta Parker was apparently in Canberra. See evidence of Parker.

The meeting with Zanatta on July 25 occurred because of the unusual source of the request ie through Atkin. P 951. However a similar procedure had not been adopted with the Grabski e-mail which had also come through Atkin.

Zanatta phoned Parker at 2.30 on the afternoon of July 26 obviously to inform him of her planned delivery on the following Monday.

At 2.37 that afternoon she phoned the number of her PA Jackie Heintz who apparently arranged for her travel. It is presumed that she also arranged for a courier for the Documents from the Melbourne office to Point Cook however Butera was questioned about who arranged the courier and she stated that Heintz was on maternity leave at the time.P956 L1.

There must be a suspicion that given the desire to keep this transaction secret that it was Butera who organised the Courier.

At 2.40 Butera also rang Parker.

Butera did not recall the dialogue but asserts the call was about sponsorship of $90,000 for the 2013/14 year and following up on Zanatta who was going to ring him as a result of their meeting on July 25. P959.

This actually makes sense in that she has just organised a big favour for Parker; what better time to put the bite on him!

Zanatta then rang Butera later on July 26.

Butera says the call was about a new employees induction and the conflict this would cause with a CFMEU meeting.

Butera asked Zanatta to ring Atkin about this(she was in a hurry to get home) in case he received a query from the CFMEU about it. Atkin remembers this as he received the call in his Car while dropping of his daughter to “Greek school”.

Why Butera could not have rung Atkin herself on her way home is not explained.

Why CBUS should be concerned about CFMEU meetings or why anyone from the Union would seek to talk to the CEO of CBUS about a new employee in far north Queensland was not explored.

An obvious explanation for the calls from Zanatta to Butera and Atkin was to inform them of the plans made for delivery of the Documents.

Finally Butera in her original testimony stated that she was not able to remember the contents of Zanatta’s phone call to her on the afternoon of July 26.

However she stated at P963 L15 that her memory of this had been refreshed by a conversation she had with Zanatta before her original testimony.

It was at this stage that Heydon gave her a warning about Perjury.

3. Conclusion

It is fairly obvious that Zanatta in her Testimony on October 3, continued to lie after the admission she made about delivery of the documents.

This conclusion has been reinforced by the testimony of Butera as her attempts to counter the obvious inferences are unconvincing. The involvement of Atkin is also an open question.

Fitzpatricks evidence has been supported by what has been revealed.

It is difficult to see how any jury could find Parker innocent of a charge of perjury on this matter alone.

For the sake of completeness here are some extracts about Mc Whinney that came from the first CFMEU hearing.

From original evidence of Zanatta.

Page 29

Q. Could you come through to page 46 please. That's an

email from yourself to Mr Walls of 18 July 2013?

A. Yes.

Q. You're asking Mr Walls to arrange an enquiry for those

two employer accounts for the past 12 months. See that?

Did you have any conversation with anyone prior to sending

that email?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Who was that with?

A. That was with Maria Butera. She asked me if I could

review the company's arrears.

Q. Did she tell you why she wanted that information?

A. She said that David Atkin, the CEO of Cbus, had

received a telephone call from Mr Parker in relation to him

raising some serious concerns about the company's arrears.

Q. Did she tell you when Mr Parker had made that

telephone call?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any discussion with Mr Atkin about it?

A. No.

Q. Did you know at that time, 18 July 2013, that

Mr McWhinney had forwarded some information separately from

Mr Gaske to the CFMEU?

A. Beg your pardon?

Q. Did you know by that stage that Mr McWhinney had

already forwarded some information to an officer at the

CFMEU?

A. No.

But she certainly did know Mc Whinney had raised a query by July 22.

Page 35

Q. We'll just keep working through the documents,

Ms Zanatta. Come up the page, 113. 22 July 2013 Mr Walls

responds to your email, so it's about 55 minutes later. He

says:

Hi Lisa. I'm so sorry about that. I

thought cc'ing Bob would be okay given that

he asked for the same query two weeks ago

but changed his mind. My apologies, I will

remember for next time.

See that?

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. What did Mr McWhinney ask for, do you know? Without

going through the documents, I'm just asking whether you

know from your memory?

A. At that stage I didn't know Bob had raised an enquiry

Later on in the evidence she again denied knowing any details of the query raised by Mc Whinney

Q. You see what happened I suggest to you is that

Mr McWhinney released certain information, but it wasn't

enough, so Mr Parker contacted Cbus and said he needed more

and then that's when this material was gathered together

with the phone numbers and the addresses. That's right,

isn't it, or do you not know?

A. I'm not Bob McWhinney

page 36

She had been told in the e-mail from Walls that Mc Whinney had requested the same material about 2 weeks before but had changed his mind.

According to Butera she was told by Zanatta in the meeting on July 25 that Mc Whinney had changed his mind because of the intervention of Zanatta.

Butera was aware that Zanatta had prevented Mc Whinney from accessing the very information that Zanatta now had and was discussing with her.

The production of the information was not a cost free exercise for CBUS; see references in Zanatta’s testimony to e-mails from Walls about the fund agreeing to the costs.

Why produce information, at a cost, and that had previously been prevented from generation, if there was no intention to use it on this occasion.

If the intention to use it is acknowledged that intention must at the least have been shared by Zanatta and Butera.

There is no other reasonable explanation given the history of phone calls around the issue and the change in attitude of Zanatta between the Mc Whinney enquiry and the one through Atkin/Butera.

It seems reasonable to conclude that Zanatta was told to find out exactly what Parker wanted and organise it.

Butera at least knew what had resulted from this by July 25.

In 1798 William Wordsworth wrote 5 poems about the loss of a little girl called Lucy.   This poem has always made me feel a lot better about the eternal nature of our little Lucy.  Wordsworth's Lulu had 3 years, our little girl only 5 months but even with those centuries separating me and Wordsworth I feel a lot better every time I read this poem.

Three years she grew in sun and shower,
Then Nature said, "A lovelier flower
On earth was never sown;
This Child I to myself will take,
She shall be mine, and I will make
A Lady of my own.

Myself will to my darling be
Both law and impulse, and with me
The Girl in rock and plain,
In earth and heaven, in glade and bower,
Shall feel an overseeing power
To kindle or restrain.

She shall be sportive as the fawn
That wild with glee across the lawn
Or up the mountain springs,
And hers shall be the breathing balm,
And hers the silence and the calm
Of mute insensate things.

The floating clouds their state shall lend
To her, for her the willow bend,
Nor shall she fail to see
Even in the motions of the storm
A beauty that shall mould her form
By silent sympathy.

The stars of midnight shall be dear
To her, and she shall lean her ear
In many a secret place
Where rivulets dance their wayward round,
And beauty born of murmuring sound
Shall pass into her face.

And vital feelings of delight
Shall rear her form to stately height,
Her virgin bosom swell,
Such thoughts to Lucy I will give
While she and I together live
Here in this happy dell.

Thus Nature spake—The work was done—
How soon my Lucy's race was run!
She died and left to me
This heath, this calm and quiet scene,
The memory of what has been,
And never more will be.

Mr Roberts has been sworn and is in the witness box.

Mr Roberts has corrected some of his previous evidence.

Mr Elliot is conducting the examination of Mr Roberts.

Mr Elliot has asked Mr Roberts an extensive series of questions about his credit.  Mr Robert states that he understands that his credit is in issue before the Commission.

After extensive questioning from Mr Elliot the Commissioner intervened to put a number of questions to Mr Roberts.

At 12.14 Mr Morrison was given access to Mr Roberts.

Mr Morrison is a feisty interrogator.  He put to Mr Roberts that once Lisa Zanatta had given her evidence, her admission about delivering the LisCon information to Brian Parker - then from that point the gig was up for Mr Roberts.   Zanatta's evidence made clear that Roberts had been bulltishing, that was the essence of Mr Morrison's examination.   Mr Roberts responded, "Ms Zanatta's evidence did give me cause to reflect on my own evidence to the Commission."   Masterful.

At 1230 Ms Heath was allowed to take a piece of Mr Roberts.

At 1250PM Ms Heath completed her cross examination.

Mr Agius has some words of comfort for Mr Roberts.

At 1254 Mr Roberts was excused.

The Commission is adjourned until 1400.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH LIVE

Some pre-match conferencing.

Big Dave on hand to lend support as the workers struggle.

Elvis is in attendance, just making sure his line of sight to the witness box is clear.

Sparkles gets time to slip another durrie in.

At 1022 the Commission commenced its hearing.

Sparkles the Clown is today's feature presentation - Brian Parker is in the witness box.

Mr Stoljar has delivered Mr Parker a very clear warning regarding the penalties for perjury and giving false evidence to the Commission.

Mr Stoljar asked Mr Parker if his previous evidence to the Royal Commission was entirely truthful, he gave him every opportunity to change his prior evidence if it was in any way incorrect or untruthful.   Mr Parker confirmed his prior evidence as truthful.

Carrying on the best Atkin/CFMEU/CBUS traditions Mr Parker has declined to make his own written statement to the Commission - rather than do that he spoke to Rita Mallia and then Rita made a written statement to the Commission about her conversation with Sparkles.   Parker is now being cross examined about the contents of Ms Mallia's statement which records her conversation with him.   There's no penalty for giving false statements to the lady President of the CFMEU but it's hardly a manly way to conduct yourself Brian.   Man up and do your own work.

Mr Parker gave evidence that beyond speaking to Mr Atkin the CEO of CBUS he had no further conversations with anyone from CBUS about LisCon.

Mr Stoljar drew Mr Parker's attention to this Exhibit of Lisa Zanatta's telephone records.   A few hours after the conversation with Mr Atkin Ms Zanatta rang Mr Parker, the call record is at 1406 on 18 July, 2013.

Now he thinks he probably did have that conversation with Ms Zanatta - but it was probably about sponsorship or the weather or how the New York Yankees went last weekend, but definitely not about LisCon.

On the afternoon of Friday 26 July Ms Zanatta phoned Mr Parker from her mobile phone, that was the afternoon she arranged for the courier bundle to be delivered to her home, the afternoon she booked the tickets to Sydney.   Mr Parker just can't recall, Can't Remember a Flamin' Thing, CRAFT.

The phone records show that Parker had a 4 and a bit minute conversation with Ms Zanatta at 2.30 on that Friday afternoon:

And now surprise surprise a few minutes later at 2.40PM Ms Butera rang Mr Parker - her phone records are in evidence but yet to be published by the Commission.

Mr Parker says there's no doubt by the records that he had those conversations with Ms Zanatta and Ms Butera but blow me down, the old memory thing, he wouldn't have a clue about what they were speaking about.

The afternoon after Ms Zanatta flew to Sydney with the bundle of documents she phoned Parker for 3.30 minutes (item 11 on the phone record).

Now Brian reckons that he had some conversations with Ms Zanatta about LisCon arrears in paying their superannuation contributions.

Mr Stoljar said is this the position, "Ms Zanatta rang you on the Monday afternoon - you weren't in the office, when you got into the office on the Tuesday morning your rang Ms Zanatta at 11 minutes past ten to say you had received the package.   You then gave the documents to Mr Fitzpatrick who started calling LisCon employees straight away using the information from the documents Ms Zanatta had delivered to you.   Is that the case?

Parker - no, definitely not, it didn't happen that way at all.

Well how much would you expect to get for perjury?   Well don't answer, because there's more, more phone evidence.

Item 31 is Zanatta ringing up Sparkles.

The next day at 7.30 in the morning Ms Zanatta rang Sparkles the Clown again - this time it was after lawyers for LisCon had written to CBUS formally bringing the matter of the leaked information and phone calls to LisCon members to the CBUS board's attention.   Ms Zanatta was probably a bit nervous - thus the 7.30AM conversation:

Mr Stoljar has pointed out that there is no evidence of Mr Parker speaking regularly to Ms Zanatta except for the 7 odd calls surrounding the time that she ripped off the confidential member information, flew to Sydney, delivered the stuff to Parker's office and then started to worry when the lawyers were getting a bit threatening.

Parker says that they were probably talking about sponsorship.   Or something.

Mr Stoljar referred Mr Parker to his previous evidence from 3 October.

Mr Stoljar pointed out that it wasn't one conversation with Ms Zanatta, it was 8 or 9.

Had he received a package from Zanatta?

Mr Parker still denies getting the package from Zanatta - he confirmed his prior evidence that the first time he saw "the stuff" was when the lawyers showed him.

Sparkles confirms that he is happy for Lisa Baby to take the fall all by herself.   It was all that devil woman you see.   Another chivalrous gentleman prepared to risk all to help a damsel in distress.

At 11.12 Mr Stoljar had had enough of listening to fibs.

Mr Morrison is now cross examining Sparkles.

Mr Morrison is being quite pointed in asking Mr Parker about his involvement in the corruption of the CFMEU particularly as it relates to the close association between senior CFMEU officials with known criminals like George Alex and others.

Mr Parker said that's not correct.

Mr Morrison called him Sparkles.  Mr Agius didn't like that, neither did Sparkles.

Ms Heath for LisCon is now on her feet - look out Sparkles.

Ms Heath put the usual allegations about the agreement with Zanatta to Mr Parker - he denied that there was ever any agreement and he denied receiving the leaked information.

He denied getting on the phone to talk to Dave Noonan about what he'd been up to with Ms Zanatta.

Ms Heath showed Mr Parker this letter from lawyers for LisCon sent to Dave Noonan.

Mr Parker thinks he might have had a chat with Big Dave after Dave received that letter.   There's a possibility that he had a chat, doesn't want to commit either way (until the phone records front up).

At 11.33 Ms Heath completed here cross examination.

Mr Agius is now examining his client.

At 11.34 Mr Parker was excused amidst much bonhomie with the Commissioner.

Some things are expressed far more eloquently than words could ever hope to achieve.

The minutes of silence on Armistice Day come to mind - and now these two minutes of standing ovation from Canada's parliamentarians who rose as one to honour a man and a tradition.

The unauthorised exposure of his private emails, his suspension and, worst, the overreaction of the ­ignorant public and apathy of his fellow academics who have stood by in silence grieve me more than words can say.

Spurr is one of the very few lecturers I unreservedly admire. When I began my degree I was a lone Asian face in a sea of fair-haired and clear-eyed Australians. I struggled to understand my lecturers. Their tendency to nominalise common adjectives rendered familiar words alien to me. Their habit of monotonously reading pre-prepared scripts and their inability to interact with students left me dissatisfied. Yet when I audited Spurr’s lectures on modernism, I saw, for the first and last time, every inch of the lecture hall, including the stair­cases, occupied by students. He spoke with confidence, clarity, eloquence, humour, pacing the room with a stately gait, quoting from a copy of Yeats (apparently unannotated) that always seemed to open at the right page. He took me on a breathtaking journey through Irish literature and revolution. They were classes to remember and set the bar by which I measure all teaching.

I never found Spurr patronising or discriminatory. I never felt undermined or underestimated. Contrary to the unapproachable, unsympathetic professor New Matilda eagerly paints, Spurr is actively involved in student societies: from poetry and religion to the defence of animal rights.

At his lectures, student-society talks and charity functions, I met some of the kindest, most intelligent and open-minded of my friends. The surprise and joy we felt at the congregation of such an unlikely combination of people was immense.

I cannot say that I have never experienced racism from academic staff at Sydney although most racism we encounter in life is very subtle. But if we were to investigate every staff member’s private correspondence we might overhear a few grumpy words that could be labelled racist or sexist. If we take words out of context, truth is distorted and the author’s intention misunderstood.

Moreover, any comment not published in accordance with the will of the author, or delivered as a personal attack towards an individual, has no impact on social mores, however distasteful the language, so ought not be grounds for punishment.

Freedom of expression is fundamental to academe and democracy. Deprived of it, Australia is headed down the perilous path towards totalitarianism. At Sydney University students and staff enjoy, as well as suffer from, the great freedom using or abusing their languages to express their views. When it is acceptable to use the most vulgar language in student campaigns, on T-shirts, pavements, when f. k and bitch are used throughout the student newspaper, Honi Soit, and the groups campaigning for its editorial control last year were named Sex and Evil, how could politically insensitive terms in personal correspondence cause offence?

We are all entitled to our beliefs (however antiquated, unpopular or prejudiced) and to say things we may or may not believe — sometimes merely for social purposes. Our growth as a person and as a society terminates when we allow pride to triumph over our thirst for knowledge and truth. If an opinion offends us, we should respect the right of expression but beg to differ. The aim of education is not to silence people into kind whispers and innocuous small talk but to provoke thought. It’s all part of an ongoing discussion, without which learning is impossible.

The exaggerated outrage at Spurr’s emails is centred on his role in the reform of the English school curriculum, insinuating his judgment on the dominance of indigenous literature in Australian textbooks is coloured by a racist antagonism towards Aborigines. Yet Spurr spent more time in his emails criticising the hypocrisy of the political establishment in its endless gestures towards the Aboriginal community than diminishing the Aboriginal contribution to Australian literature.

In China we boast of our literary heritage and classical Chinese is compulsory in high school, but we have not forgotten the brilliant galaxies outside our own. One of the brightest is Anglo-American literature. To deny its place in the literary universe or reduce the number of masterpieces in the curriculum of an English-speaking country to include an excessive number of texts from another literary tradition would be sacrilege.

If the Australian government and people can garner the energy they’ve wasted on being politically correct and displays of gratitude or guilt, and channel it into constructing better community facilities, education and support services for Aboriginal people and all the sons and daughters of Australia, they would heal more wounds than random “racist” remarks can inflict.

All I know for sure is Spurr’s personal linguistic choices are none of our business. None of the emails prove him guilty of any sin other than a sardonic sense of humour and childlike whimsicality — the common vices of a poet.

To me he is someone who dedicates himself to the noble cause of restoring the beauty of a civilisation that people have too lightly cast away: good manners, respect for the elderly, a sound knowledge of English, modesty of dressing in public. His intentions are honourable, even if they make him unpopular with opponents.

He should not be made a scapegoat for an ideology of which he is not an advocate. He is not the parody the media presents. The university should not lose a jewel in its crown. If I, a small, sensitive, feminist, patriotic Chinese girl, am not offended by these leaked emails, why should anyone else be?

Lily (Yuan) Wang is a former student of Barry Spurr.

A few words from Muso on this piece.