|
Issue No. 139 | 07 June 2002 |
With Prejudice
Interview: Class Action Safety: A Mother's Tale Unions: The Hottest Seat in Town International: Defensive Enterprise Economics: A Super Deal? History: A Radical Life Media: Cross Purposes Review: When the Force Is Unconscious Poetry: Wouldn't It Be Loverly
Grieving Mum Turns Cole Around Hamberger Grilled Over AWA Scam Government Shrugs Off Death Sentence Charge Action To Pay Foreign Crew Aussie Wages Birds Get More Protection Than Workers Budget Delivers - But Not For DOCS Statewide Ban On Grain Loading Howard Soft On Organised Crime? UN Honours Building Union Drugs Program Award-Winning Poet Wins Right To Write Mahathir Told to Release Labour Activisits Horta Backs Western Sahara Independence
The Soapbox The Locker Room Bosswatch Week in Review
Robbo's Rave Latham Ad Nauseum Our Home Is Girt By Wire Hands Off Hooligans!
Labor Council of NSW |
Editorial With Prejudice
We've all heard the claims that the Commission seems more concerned about allegations involving the CFMEU than more general considerations, but you have to sit inside the court-room to understand the nature of the unfairness inherent in the Royal Commission process.
While a phalanx of lawyers are on hand to represent the interests of various parties, there are really only two players in the Commission - Cole in the chair, and his counsel assisting Nicholas Green. Green controls the agenda and runs witnesses through their statements. For employers with a gripe against the CFMEU, this comprises a series of friendly leading questions to squeeze out maximum scandal. In contrast, when a CFMEU official enters the stand the tone changes with the Counsel Assisting setting out to lure the witness into a contradiction or, better still an admission of guilt. Green's performance questioning Andrew Ferguson this week was extraordinary, he was probed on everything from statements in his university thesis of 20 years ago to whether officials have ever sworn on building sites. At the time the primary evidence is elicited, the lawyers for the CFMEU are not allowed to cross-examine witnesses on the statements they provide the Commission; their involvement is limited to intervening on points of legal order. They are allowed to cross-examine at a later date, but only on matters witnesses receive prior notice of - and long after damaging allegations have been aired publicly. This is where the real injustice of the Royal Commission lies; with the restrictions imposed on union lawyers to challenge evidence at the time it is given. By controlling the agenda and the evidence, Cole and his Counsel shape their inquiry, rolling out untested allegations with all the quasi-judicial trapping of impartiality. The media assigned to report on the case, wait breathlessly for the juiciest morsel each day and faithfully reporting it - without the risk of defamation. The Commission provides a steady source of anti-union stories presented in a forum where there is no right of reply. Even when the Commissioner showed his compassion in allowing the mother of a dead worker to address him directly, it was unfortunately the exception that proved the rule. The key issues of union concern - that is safety, tax fraud and use of illegal immigrants - have been hived off to a paper inquiry rather than presented in this very public manner. Make no mistake, what is going on here is the manufacturing of a 'crisis', every bit as cynical as the Children Overboard affair - a calculated use by the Howard Government of the judicial processes to control a media agenda to meet defined political ends. Peter Lewis Editor
|
Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
© 1999-2002 Workers Online |
|