Did the cross-examinations of 2 wirnesses yesterday undermine the prosecution case against the two persons arrested last week?

I have tried to find the answer given by the Commissioner to a witness about a week or so ago about the use of evidence presented to the TURC in other cases in other jurisdictions. I cannot find it in the transcript can anyone help?

Michael, the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption is asking for submissions by 21 August on their “Discussion Paper – Options for Law Reform.” The paper takes the form of their next likely report.

See at http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Submissions/Pages/default.aspx

The paper examines the new Union Rights of Entry and worries over how to improve the current system. Earlier in the paper the Commission sets down the historical formation and role of Trade Unions, noting that things have changed since then. However, the Commission fails to note that even before Trade Unions were recently given Rights of Entry, government OH&S inspectors and Fair Work Inspectors as well as police forces have had and exercised rights of entry to workplaces.

So, why do Trade Unions need rights of entry at all, especially if they cannot be held accountable? The Commission does not address this basic question and overlooks the truism that absolute power (power without accountability) corrupts.

The paper notes the role of Trade Unions, with the ALP, in supporting the election of Labor governments. It worries over political donations and how to control them. However, the Commission does not address the greatest potential, if not, actual source of corruption – government grants by Labor governments back to Trade Unions, once elected. Why not? Isn’t this an enquiry into Trade Union corruption?

The paper touches on Secondary Boycotts but does not examine the corporate beneficiaries of such Trade Union actions or the close relationship between some trade union officials and millionaire businessmen. Why not?

The paper tails off lamely on whether to look at some legislation like America’s “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.” Dismissively, the paper says only one submission has been received to that effect (from Boral) and if anyone wants to take the idea further they should submit draft legislation. I thought that was the TURC’s job, especially given its title and resources.

I live in hope, but I fear yet another bureaucratic report that will gather dust on shelves in Canberra. Still, it has kept many public servants in employment and perhaps that’s what these reports are all about.

What nightlife is there in Canberrastan?? Scooby is nodding off on screen.

These extension lead photos are a BS matter Mr Agius! If any lead is damaged they can be repaired or replaced on the spot they are all inexpensive items. Damaging a lead can also be done in a few seconds then immediately photographed at any time.

Are these facts beyond the intellectual capacity of the CFMEU to comprehend? Obviously, doing these so called safety inspections on concrete pour days & stopping the pour from proceeding is the standard agenda of the CFMEU!

Gillard & Shorten have much to answer for here by putting in place the industrial legislation that has allowed the CFMEU the legal ability to extort this on site rort.

For factual correctness (as I know many of us are now fans of his work) the Barristers name is spelled 'Adam Morison'.

Now Agius SC is questioning the integrity of the Police Sergeant on the basis of a statement not yet in evidence by Mr Lomax.

Mr Agius thinks everyone other than the Union is lying. Builder's, (and their wives), workers, police, MBA representatives - all liars making up their testimony as they go along. Only the Union thugs can give us an honest account of their exemplary efforts to ensure everyone's safety.

Laughable.

There is a False and Misleading Representation in that RDO and Public Holiday Roster. Notice the use of the 'ACT Government' Logo - purposefully done to imply authority and endorsement. I am quite sure the 'ACT Government' does not authorise the use of it's logo without strict rules, if at all.

Mr Agius has to much leeway to intimidate the witness, when he [Mr Agius] talks about intimidation. Well, Mr Stoljar is not helping. He lets Mr Agius get away with to much.

Mr Stoljar is so weak!

scooby needs to seek absence of leave he is not there.

It is "too much." ...to bear?

I had to give evidence in the High Court of Australia in 1973.

During my cross examination the barrister asked me if I had read about the issue in the NT News over my morning cup of tea.

When I answered no he asked me again was I sure that I hadn't read the NT News on the morning in question.

I answered no again and then informed him that at that particular time the paper was an afternoon/evening edition only.

Somewhat deflated he ended his cross examination.

All you have to do is stick to the truth and don't let them confuse the issue and eventually they give up.

You never know, GP.

It is not a LNP government there.
With ALL the other connotations.

The only answer to the time wasting mode of questioning of Mr Agius is to ask him "to rephrase the question so I can understand it.."

He constantly suggest things which is introducing evidence and he needs to be stopped.

He was probably up reading transcript and lawyer stuff half the night.. it could be the Agius effect too much of him can make you yawn..

Its just a time wasting technique Helen , often used by lawyers who know their client is guilty , its to muddy the waters ,mitigate responsibility and slow down the introduction of new incriminating evidence in a forum with a finite time schedule like the TURC .
One only has to listen to the drivel from Aguis and Docking to realise this , the repetitive questioning ,the childish nitpicking , the pathetic logic , The theatrics of always looking sideways to their peers as they ask question in the vain hope of a "gotcha" response or revelling in some pretend daydream of "Rumpole moment" , and all this charade is usually on the most useless and inconsequential matters ,its quite an embarrassing trainwreck to watch them .

John Agius SC was the Counsel Assisting the Cole Royal Commission. His antics to me in this Royal Commission is one of someone whom "appears" to be representing CFMEU but is deliberately sabotaging his client. I think it would be turning his gut having to represent this bunch of thugs and his recent actions in the Commission points to some very half hearted thrusts and quite deliberate questions that elicit responses that paints his clients as the thugs that they are.

Agius SC is not a stupid man and is one of the top silks in the country, his style is annoying and deliberate. Michael commented of the own goal today by Mr Agius, I do not think it was. Agius is doing the country a service, highly unethical in relation to the people he is representing.

Michael. Whilst there are some interesting responses to the above, one can agree with the response posted by Roger Stirling. Having tuned into today's proceedings; is John Agius SC becoming frustrated with those witnesses who perhaps may not be giving the Union what they want and as a example, the way he questioned the Federal Police Officer whose line of questioning saw a objection raised by Counsel Assisting the Commission and there was something quietly said by Angius which saw a response from Stoljar. Counsel for the Union was perhaps attempting to score a point on the Officer but I too, was impressed with the Detective Sgt. Another interesting observation was the Officer referring to his Statement re various laws etc. Another key question that needs to be raised is; will the Commission call Lomax?

Yes,

They leave themselves wide open by having a loose and lax system of governance.

Some points to ponder:
1. the fact that union elections are costly and it is beyond the realm of an average worker's capacity to afford without requiring factional backing needs to be addressed.
{A fair dinkum union would conduct such matters at minimal expense to members and save their funds towards representing member interests.}

2. the fact that there is no probity or transparency in union governance to the point officials can write their own redundancy packages
{I recall unpleasant allegations that were allegedly distributed on a "shit sheet" claiming a senior TWU official and ALP figure wrote his own overly generous redundancy package. These allegations dismissed, not (allegedly) because it didn't happen but because there were no rules preventing the practice. Members should have some peace of mind that there are safeguards in place to prevent this from happening and ensure that their money is effectively used to represent their interests. It would also be nice to see some retrospective laws to recover any money that has been siphoned by flagrant abusers of privilege.}

3. Tender processes for union work need to be reviewed to prevent money being siphoned in excessive fees and charges.

4. Auditing procedures need to be reviewed. Forensic scrutiny of past audits needs to occur.

5. Forensic scrutiny of all registered EBA's needs to occur to evaluate whether the stat decs supporting over all fairness can be relied upon as true and accurate evaluations.

6. The relationship between unions and labour hire organisations needs to be scrutinised. Labour hire is the antithesis of the union ethos - This cannot be viewed as a healthy partnership designed to represent member interests.

A bad lawyer can drag things out for ages. A good lawyer even longer. Day rates don't make for short matters.

That would be reasonable had Lomax had his statement sworn into evidence and also been cross examined. It is the Blewitt and Wilson situation again.

Yeah.
It wasn't a good day for the Union.
On top of that we have the sergeants evidence of their intimidatory tactics using safety issues to gain access.
But the really big issue for me is how De Lorenzo happened to get this information into evidence as a result of an off hand answer to one of Morrison's questions.
The RC staff have known from the time of first receiving statements from the Union that their main line of defence would be that their foremost concern with these activities was Safety and not ulterior motives.
Would it not therefore have been reasonable to lead expert evidence about how safety programmes are designed and audited. This could then have been given context by similar expert evidence about the practicalities of running a construction site.
The Union witnesses so far could then have been questioned about how their activities made allowances for these systems of management.
Maybe the RC has bitten off more than they can chew and need more staff but this situation is not good enough.
It is lacking professionalism at best and incompetent at worst.

Is Agius a "senior barrister", or merely a fossilised 'Junior'?

Does anybody know whether he is any better at making cups of coffee, than he is at launching interrogations of witnesses?

Maybe there is a spelling error in his Job Description and he is actually an antique "barrista" from the coffee stall downstairs?

"One lump or two?"

Barking Mr Agius reminds me of my old white haired little maltese terrier, she often snaps out at people that she does not like.

It seems to me that SAFETY on the job site should be delegated to one and only one Authority, being a former member of the MBA I have paid enormous amounts of money for numerous work place safety folders, all well documented and well presented. I’m talking about thousands of dollars.

The right of entry should be by one Authority for any safety issue and in general it is only sloppy builders who allow trip hazards and electrical lead problems, and there are many, many of them, more than what this TURC evidence and unions have uncovered.

In NSW we have the problem with untidy builders that never spend enough time onsite doing house cleaning. If a lay person was to look at these sites they would determine safety issues before they walked through the site fence.

I would suggest that the TURC make it mandatory that there must be a single authority police, randomly checking development approvals and make flying visits to job sites to issue safety breach forms similar to on the spot fines.

Maybe in the government approval process there could be a form developed for specific site safety and all the construction affiliated bodies could produce documentation and training manuals on how to keep these areas safe, not just for the site worker but for the walking public and visitors.

All that is needed is a single safety inspection system, not numerous, as the more there are the more confliction enters the arena.

It's how they DELIVER the message and REACT to the answers that gets up the nose of people. They have a to be accountable as well as the witness.

He is "putting" the accusation to the policeman as he is required to do if Mr Lomax's statement is to be put into evidence. The policeman gets the chance to deny it, to give his side. A rule of fairness.

" ... at that particular time the paper was an afternoon/evening edition only"

And at that time it was illegal to read the evening edition on the morning after, I suppose? Did he ask you then if you had read about it in the paper the night before?

Sometimes watching Agius it seems to me he is just wasting his clients money and TURCs time! Edward James

JG - my great concern is that we are now back to the Gillard days. Bob Blewitt was very unfairly treated.

Look for heavens sake, the CFMEU is an absolute lay down mizaire for deregistration, and I suspect both the AWU and the HSU have a lot of skeletons to be further uncovered.

How can a TURC be so inconsistent in their endeavours to get to the truth. It is almost like they are hamstrung, particularly when they get too close to uncovering obvious and criminal corruption. They should have been tapping everyone's phone since the first day of the TURC, including Trades Hall and federal and state politicians. Good grief they have to rely upon a benolavent witness (Teleb) to get a couple of CFMEU bagmen in the dock, and to top it all off, by allowing Agius to rant on, they may have even prejudiced their own efforts.

IMO - The TURC is absolute amateur hour. They are not getting down and dirty and certainly not 'looking' to close out avenues of enquiry to their natural ends. E.g. Michael's suggestions on further leads in the AWU=WRA in WA and VIC.

They haven't even got back yet to the CFMEU in Qld and VIC = Setka and Co. They should have an absolute field day in VIC with Boral's support.

It is such a shame to waste this opportunity to once and for all, put some truth and integrity into the union movement and the industries they work in. Lets not forget the Companies (THeiss, Leytons et al) who play it from the other end to their own commercial advantage.

Disappointing indeed and you know what, there is really only 5 working months to the end of the TURCs extension. 5 months will just disappear before we know it. Then again, that is more likely what Labor/Unions and the LNP actually want!!!!

You have no idea what the matter before the High Court was about so I will treat your comment with the contempt it deserved.

Bravo...Tell it like it is.

First the photos were used by Agius before they were attached to Lomax's Statement which is yet to be sworn. There is no evidence that the digital photos have had their properties sworn, These give considerable details including time of taking and sometimes reveal if the photos have been 'fiddled' with.
As regards that foll Michael(TDA) Mr Lomax is not able to make amendments to his statement to counteract the testimony of the police. This is a repeat of the Blewitt and Wilson charade.
No Barrister should be allowed to appear for a party (or related party) until a swon statement has been received into evidence. That includes a Barrister who appears for a Union NOT BEING ALLOWED to appear for anyone else who has not lodged a statement whether they are employed by the Union or not.

Would you drink a coffee made by that man?