SO....”I can't - I can't - I can't say why I did”

 

Despite the poor memory of some of the persons involved in the CBUS leak certain events are clear (points 1 to 4).

1. Fitzgerald’s original request to Mc Whinney for personal information was stopped by Zanatta.

2.Subsequent requests by Parker for information were made to Atkin after a lengthy record of  phone calls between Atkin and Noonan. 

3. As a result of Parkers request Atkin asked Butera to assist the Union and this request was verbal.

4. Zanatta then proceeded to arrange for the supply to the Union of the information she had previously prevented McWhinney from providing.

5. Atkin has acknowleged that many unusual events occurred around this issue.

• The e-mail forwarded to him by Noonan on June 28, 2013 originating with Grabski about Liscon arrears; a query at the credit control level escalated to the top of the Union and CBUS and which Atkin acknowleged as an unusual interaction to occur at this level.
• The Parker phone calls, something Atkin recognised as a “signature” event.
• The phone call from Zanatta while dropping his daughter off at the Greek school.
• Zanatta very rarely spoke to Atkin ; Atkin acknowleged that it was unusual for her to contact him.

6.Atkin says he didn’t connect the Noonan e-mail and Parker requests.

• He has no clear recollection of the Parker conversation but his memory is clear enough to say it played no part in the provision of the private information.
• He had no recollection of the Zanatta conversation when asked about it by CBUS lawyers. Zanatta provided it to him after she was asked to examine her records by those lawyers.
• Now he has a “specific “ memory of it.
• He seems to have a good memory about matters that are in his favour ( or a convenient file note re the May 2014 discussion with Parker).

7. On July 19, 2013 Atkin went to Lidcombe. 

• This was the day after the Parker requests.
• He had a phone discussion with Butera during the travel.
• He doesn’t recall the conversation but maintains it wouldn’t have been about the request because several interactions about a request from a Branch of the Union would have been noticed by him and remembered.
• The disconnect between this explanation and his failure to remember the detail of various correspondence and discussions about Liscon that he was involved in would appear obvious.

8. Atkin had the expectation that Butera would get assistance to action the request.

18       Q.   You were aware, weren't you, that she then passed that

              request on to Ms Zanatta for action?

20       A.   I made an assumption that that's what happened.  I'm

21       not sure that I actually knew that that's what happened,

Heath examination 23/10/14. p 875

 

 

40       Q.   I think you've already said to me you had the

41       expectation, when you passed the query back to Ms Butera

42       from Mr Parker, that it would be Ms Zanatta who would deal 43       with it?

44       A.   No, no, I had an expectation that Maria would pass it

45       down the line.  Lisa would have been an obvious person but

46       not necessarily the only one.  There could have been one or

47       two other colleagues that could have dealt with the matter.

 

Heath examination 23/10/14 p 876.

Atkin is effectively saying he had no involvement with Parker’s request other than passing on his version of it to Butera. He didn’t even know who she was going to use to action it.

According to Butera’s evidence in December 2014 she told him specifically she would be using Zanatta.

Page 4

9. Atkins acknowleged in his evidence on 23/10/2014 that Butera would have reported back on his request.

  In relation to Zanatta     

 Q.   When did you find out that she was the person who was

3       dealing with it?

4       A.   I can't say for certain.  It would have been around

5       that time because Maria would have reported back to me that

6       the request that we'd got from Brian Parker had been

7       processed 

p 877  23/10/2014

According to Zanatta it was her that told him this at the end of their phone conversation  (the Greek school).

There is I believe no  evidence of Butera providing that confirmation.  

10. Against this background Atkin received through Noonan a complaint on 2/8/2013 from Cleary & Hoare acting for Liscon about the Gaske leaks (a separate matter).

40       Q.   Do you see that your immediate response to that at

41       10.47am was to pass it not only to your executive manager,

42       Ms Butera, but also Ms Thurstans, who was the compliance

43       officer?

44       A.   I can see that now, yes.

45

46       Q.   But also to Ms Zanatta?

47       A.   Yes, I can see that.

23/10/2014 p 877

 

He agrees that the Cleary & Hoare letter is very unusual but he didn’t connect it with the other unusual events  already discussed( the Noonan e-mail and the Parker request).

 

 35       Q.   Even though all three events concerned the same union

 36       and the same employer?

 37       A.   I didn't connect them.

 38

 39       Q.   Even though those three events all concerned the

 40       disclosure of information by Cbus to the union?

 41       A.   I've given my answer.  I didn't connect them

 

p 878 23/10/2014

 

11. Atkin had originally seen an e-mail on 28/6/2013 from Grabski to Zanatta (the Noonan e-mail).

He is a busy man in charge of a $28 billion organisation, he can’t be expected to remember everything and in this case he doesn’t.

He might have thought of Zanatta when he received the letter from Cleary &Hoare because of the Noonan e-mail concerning that company but he “didn’t connect them”.

He might have thought of Zanatta because of the Parker request but he “didn’t connect them”.

The obvious explanation is that he did in fact connect them. 

He knew Butera was using Zanatta to action his request for “private member information” and this letter concerned a leak of such information in relation to the very company that his request concerned.

What was Atkin’s explanation?

2       Q.   You must have selected Ms Zanatta as a person to send

3       it to because you were already aware that she had

4       involvement in dealing with Lis-Con?

5       A.   Yes, I think you're right, that's clear.

6

7       Q.   I think you told me on last occasion that you

8       initiated an investigation by Ms Thurstans into this issue

 9       about the disclosure.  Was that in response to receiving

10       this letter from Cleary Hoare?

11       A.   Yes.

12

13       Q.   Is that why you copied in the CFMEU version of the

14       letter to Ms Thurstans so that she could investigate it?

15       A.   I  assume so, yes.

16

17       Q.   Why did you copy it to Mr Zanatta?

18       A.   I can't - I can't - I can't say why I did.  I can't

19       tell you what the thinking was behind Lisa, other than what

20       you've just - what we've just discussed, which was that she

21       would have been involved in the Lis-Con matter and so, you

22       know, I thought it would possibly be relevant for her as

23       well as for Maria and for Angela to see.

 

page 878 23/10/14

 

However according to Atkin (see point 8) at the time of making the request to Butera he never definitely knew Zanatta was involved in the Parker request and he didn’t make any connection with the Noonan e-mail.

The only evidence of a report back to him comes from Zanatta.

Atkin denies this happened.

There was therefore (if his evidence is accepted) no plausible reason for him to forward it to Zanatta.

On the other hand if Butera had told him she was using Zanatta and Zanatta in the Greek school phone call had told him the Parker matter had been sorted there is a very obvious reason for forwarding it directly to her.

It directly concerned the company in relation to which he had just actioned a very unusual request for information from Parker. 

It is a significant fact pointing to his knowledge that the activities of Butera and Zanatta involved an improper disclosure instigated at his direction (at the request of Parker after discussions by Atkin with Noonan).