define('DISABLE_WP_CRON', true); Dyson Dump | Chris White Online

Dyson Dump

Dyson Heydon obviously is Abbott’s/Turnbull’s anti-labour advocate.
He usually, as the extreme legal cleric, covers his right-wing habitat.
But here Dyson “fails” to notice his “appearance” of Liberal Party association.
Dyson go now – at least on your test.

‘Among the factors weighing against Mr Heydon’s continued role are his own words in the case of British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v Laurie, in which he addressed specifically, the importance of appearing to be fair.
“It is fundamental to the administration of justice that the judge be neutral,” he had written.
“It is for this reason that the appearance of departure from neutrality is a ground of disqualification … because the rule is concerned with the appearance of bias, and not the actuality, it is the perception of the hypothetical observer that provides the yardstick.”

Update Sept: Dyson rules he is not appearing to be biased
Dyson dump
Dyson I’m not leaving!!!
I am just fine says Dyson

Dyson Heydon gave a superb judgment explaining how a scrupulous jurist determined to ignore the political context of his inquiry might not think he’s biased. He just did a lousy job putting himself in the shoes of the man on the street, writes Paul Karp. As Dyson Heydon’s decision on his own apprehended bias yesterday showed, the problem with getting a judge to put themselves in the position of the fair minded lay observer is that most ordinary folk only believe one side of an argument, but an eminent jurist can use sophistry to prove any point they want.
Insiders 16th August. See introduction, commentary and Brendan O’Connor.

Sir Murray Rivers
Further update: Dyson “overlooks” his Liberal Party association as his defence.

Further update 21 August: Heydon considers whether he appears to be biased

Update friday 28th: Heydon delays decision

Update: Thousands of stories in Dyson Dumps, here is one on anti-unionist Zaf and lies against the CFMEU and Victorian Secretary John Setka. Check the links to Jim Marr’s expose for essential background.

Abbott resists calls to dump Dyson

Read more:

Heydon may go and Abbott looks for a replacement.

This is from Humphrey McQueen


RULE THREE: RIG HIS TERMS OF REFERENCE blind your boy to criminal bosses

See no evil in Grocon. Hear no evil of Transfield. Speak no evil of Boral.

Dyson Heydon is the most extreme right-winger ever on the High Court.
And that’s saying something given some of the reactionary swine there since 1903.

1999: He was ordered to repay $7m. for his bad legal advice to the NRMA in 1994 :
“colleagues say that Heydon, known to have a ferocious temper and a good command of a wide array of swear words, would be furious.” [SMH 14.5.99, p. 9]

How can Heydon pretend to be unbiased when he got twice as much from one job as a worker could earn in two life-times?
He stands to make more out of this Commission than a construction worker could earn in lifetime of wage-slaving till he was seventy.

1996: Howard on the hunt for Big-C Conservatives to stack the High Court.
30 October 2002: Heydon touts for a spot on the bench with a speech to the ratty right-wing monthly, Quadrant. It had been set up in the 1950s by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. With Howard in the audience, Heydon accuses the High Court of destroying ‘the rule of law’. He opposed providing counsel for the accused in murder trials.
Howard lands a gigantic-R REACTIONARY.
December 2002: Howard unleashes Heydon as the bosses’ latest judicial attack dog on. On the bench, Heydon does everything his masters want. He interprets the ‘rule of law’ to mean that rulers can do whatever they like.
2005: He backs Howard’s WorstChoices attack on workers.
2011: He upholds NSW bikie laws.
2013: He takes the cake for the highest rate of dissent on the Court; always taking the most extreme reactionary line.
October 2013: Retires, pissed off that Howard lost in 2007 and so could not appoint him him Chief Justice.
He takes out his frustrations in a stream of abuse against his fellow right-wing judges as ‘overbearing’ and ‘The enemy within’. His picture of them as ‘utterly confident of their own ability, pretty sure that no other judge has yet grasped the key point’ is an exact self-portrait.
March 2014: heads Royal Commission into Trade Union governance and corruption.
April 2014: Sucks up to Abbott with a speech to the ultra-right think-tank, the Centre of so-called Independent Studies which is totally dependent on the big end of town. Heydon claims that criticism of Abbott’s religious prejudices is like Nazi attacks on Jews.
August 2015: Exposed delivering Liberal Party lecture in honour of Barwick who conspired with fellow U.S. spook Kerr to protect CIA assets at Pine Gap by sacking Whitlam.
June 2016: Queen’s Birthday Honours: Heydon becomes ‘Panto Dame’ Dyson for his services to the arse-licking of Liberal leaders and to the boss-class.

Question: Is Heydon’s hypocrisy and foul-mouthed arrogance huge enough for his Report to attack workers for using the f-word?

Answer: You bet.

Compiled by Humphrey McQueen

Rights on site campaigns to abolish the ABCC

Rights on site campaigns to abolish the ABCC

Background Abbott’s first RC

CFMEU warns of anti-union bias from Dyson Heydon’s interim report

capitalist crisis severe

capitalist crisis severe

Dyson Heydon is condemned many times in the ‘union witch-hunt’ such as his corrupt attack on Bill Shorten.
More news comments:
Laura Tingle AFR
The most devastating headline to emerge from Bill Shorten’s appearance before the royal commission into trade unions concerned an intervention by Justice Dyson Heydon in which he suggested the Opposition Leader might be seen as an evasive witness.

Now a royal commission set up with clear political intent by the Abbott government, and which has loomed over Labor as a menace for the past two years, is itself devastated by revelations that Justice Heydon had agreed to speak at a Liberal Party fundraising function.
Read more:

ALP says Dyson has to go
“It’s clear that as a result of the acceptance by Dyson Heydon of an invitation to speak at a Liberal Party fundraising event that he disqualifies himself as a commissioner of this royal commission.” Brendan O’Connor Shadow ALP IR

ACTU says Dyson has to go

yraw vote for

yraw vote for

Update: Here is Essential reading, the ACTU submission for Dyson Heydon’s ruling whether he recourses himself – an ancient legal-clerical process whereby the cleric far removed from social reality discovers whether an average person may perceive his bias so the cleric may disqualify himself.

Heydon in our ruling class

And as well the lawyers…the rorters.
‘The government refuses to say what Mr Heydon is being paid – and therefore what he would be giving up – for conducting the $62 million royal commission, but it could be as high as $4 million.
A spokesman for the Attorney-General George Brandis said: “It is general practice that the terms and conditions on which the Commonwealth engages royal commissioners is not disclosed.”
A guide to what Mr Heydon might be paid can be seen in the generous remuneration of several legal professionals under him in the royal commission. Senior counsel assisting the royal commission Jeremy Stoljar has been allocated a potential fee of $3.3 million out of the budgeted legal spend of $25 million – and that is excluding expenses.
As Fairfax Media has reported, others are getting less: Michael Elliott, $1.3 million; Richard Scruby,​ $960,000; Sarah McNaughton, $866,000; and Fiona Roughley,​ $831,000.’

herald Sun reports $1million to Dyson Heydon.
Read more:

Dyson the extreme right-wing cleric.
And from Richard Ackland

Here Richard Ackland provides an excellent review of Dysen Heydon’s judgements showing the cleric’s extreme right wing views

Dyson and honour
Dyson and Liberal Garfield Barwick
Update 17 August: Would Dyson Heydon have skewered his own conduct had a unionist done it?
By Paul Karp
Posted Fri at 4:10pm

Dyson Heydon at the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption in Sydney.
PHOTO: Dyson Heydon at the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption in Sydney. (AAP: Jeremy Piper)
The analogy between union leaders running fundraisers for slush funds and a supposedly impartial Royal Commissioner attending a Liberal Party fundraiser is imprecise, but the short shrift Dyson Heydon gave unionists’ excuses is instructive, writes Paul Karp.

Trade Union Royal Commission chief Dyson Heydon has a difficult judgment to make in coming days – whether his own actions in agreeing to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser gives rise to actual or perceived bias that should disqualify him from his role.

And who better to judge these actions than the former High Court Justice himself? And what better standard than the one he has set for others at his own Royal Commission?

Before we consider his actions, let’s start with what we know. In an email sent just yesterday morning, Heydon’s personal assistant said he would be unable to give the Garfield Barwick address “if there is any possibility the event could be described as a Liberal Party event”.

It sounds a bit like he refused to attend. But there’s more to it. The email from Liberal identity Gregory Burton tells Heydon:

As you know [my emphasis], although nominally under the auspices of the Liberal Party lawyers’ professional branch, this is not a fundraiser – the cost charged is purely to cover dinner including our guests … although of course people will disclose it if they go over the state donation limit.
So there you have it. The Liberal organiser of the event took it as given that Heydon knew it was a Liberal event and despite asserting it was “not a fundraiser” he immediately told Heydon attendees may have to declare the $80 fee as a political donation.

Burton’s email seeks to reassure Heydon: the event is not open to media; he will not be asked about the union Royal Commission; there will be no party attribution in the Bar News record of the address. Reassuring Heydon there was no good reason he should not attend, even though he is presiding over a Royal Commission which has grilled two leaders from the other side of politics.

Burton also foresees that potential problem, saying the organisers had proceeded on the basis Heydon would fulfil the commitment “even though the Commission is still in hearing (not expected when originally arranged)”.

NSW Liberal state director Tony Nutt said Heydon was approached to deliver the address “several years ago”. But from Burton’s email it sounds like when it was “originally arranged” the Commission was already in train, but it was expected to have concluded when Heydon gave the address in 2015. This suggests Heydon may have accepted the invitation to speak some time in 2014 after his appointment to the impartial role but before the Commission was extended by a year.

And remember, Heydon’s caveat that he could not give the address was expressed only as “at least while he is in the position of Royal Commissioner”, thus reserving the right to speak at Liberal events after the job is over as he would be entitled to do.

Royal Commission case studies

There have been several case studies in his Royal Commission examining attendance at union-organised fundraisers. Although the analogy between union leaders running fundraisers for slush funds and a supposedly impartial Royal Commissioner attending a Liberal Party fundraiser is imprecise, the short shrift he gave unionists’ excuses is instructive.

In the TURC interim report, Heydon found then Australian Workers Union (AWU) Victorian secretary Cesar Melhem used his name to “deliberately target the custom” of employers so they would attend a function believing it was an AWU event when in fact their money went to Melhem’s Industry2020 slush fund. Heydon found Melhem became a “generous benefactor” contributing to union elections, including of officials at other unions who helped him win Labor preselection for the Victorian Upper House. He said Melhem’s path was “truly charmed” and “it could not seriously be contended” that the donations “did not have some role to play” in securing “a privileged path to office”.

In a similar case study Heydon criticised the AFL Grand Final Breakfast run by a union slush fund, which was advertised by a flyer saying Building Industry 2000 Plus Ltd “together with the CFMEU” put on the event. This implied it was a union event, when proceeds went to the slush fund, he concluded.

In these examples when examining unionists’ conduct, Heydon knew that big names can pull a crowd and if you want to know whose interests the event organisers were acting in you have to follow the money. Shame he didn’t apply that scrutiny to the Garfield Barwick address.

Any concerns Heydon had about whether the Garfield Barwick address “could be described” as a Liberal event could have been assisted by reading the invitation advertising it. The invitation carried a NSW Liberal letter head, asked for payment to the NSW Liberal Party, and stated “all proceeds from this event will be applied to state election campaigning”.

If only he’d seen the invitation, this whole mess could have been avoided. Arguably he already knew enough because the email he had received said the event was “under the auspices of the Liberal Party lawyers’ professional branch” and might require political donation disclosure from its attendees.

Any witness coming before TURC in such circumstances would have been grilled about whether they were only concerned if the event “could be described” as a fundraiser – or were they recklessly indifferent to the fact of whether or not it was one?

There’s more than enough to argue apprehension of bias on Heydon’s part, and it’s the reason why his toughest examination may be the one he has to conduct of himself.

Paul Karp is an industrial relations journalist at Thomson Reuters. Find him on Twitter @Paul_Karp.

Read here

Dyson and integrity

Boycott the witch-hunt into unions
by John Passant


And Dyson’s Choice by Bob Ellis (First published by Independent Australia)

After Dyson Heydon, intervening, warned Shorten that he was at risk of being seen to be lacking credibility as a witness’, I asked him thereafter day after day in my blog to say which of Shorten’s statements were incredible, or withdraw his assertion.

He did not, of course. He was aware that Shorten had performed very well, succinctly answering 902 questions in perhaps 5000 words, with a clarity and wit that had helped his cause. So an impression of long-winded validity had to be manufactured, and Heydon manufactured it, in an interruption to proceedings one might expect in a trial of an Underbelly figure. Shorten had to be seen to be mendacious, fudging, untruthful, and to imply this without evidence , of course, was bias.

It was bias that could be seen to have been purchases at at a very high price, by Howard, who had made him a High Court Judge, and he had lived well on a high wage; and by Abbott, who gave him three million or so to be a Royal Commissioner; that sum is in the vicinity of twenty-eight thousand dollars a week.

It is known he identified as a Liberal, and that the Garfield Barwick Lecture had a resonance to it, Barwick having directly advised John Kerr that he could, if he wanted, sack Gough Whitlam, and to have run the case that ended Chifley’s bank nationalization, and brought down by this tactic his government. It was not yet known what he might have said at the lecture in praise of Barwick that was not contemptuous of Labor, or of Labor’s affiliate, the union movement, now that his Commission had so brazenly gone after Julia Gillard, and had megaphoned charges that yet might be brought against Shorten, that party’s present leader.

There was also his early connection with Tony Abbott, whom he was said to have assisted to Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship, though his qualifications for that honour were flimsy, and leaned heavily on his record as a sportsman and athlete. Abbott might have felt the need to reward him with four thousand dollars a day; or he may not.

It is likely Hayden will declare himself to be blameless, and money will be spent by unions appealing to a higher court, a good deal of money. There is no way he will say if himself that he even gave the impression of bias, by agreeing to speak at a function at which money was to have been solicited that would fund Liberal Party campaigns.

He has been a waste of public money, and his appointment has been a scandal, and Abbott’s failure to sack him as grave an error as his delay in removing Bronwyn Bishop.

The government will fall because of it, after an eight or ten percent swing at the Canning byelection and the Abbott Experiment come to an end, be labelled by some historians amateur Hour’s.

Things will move quickly from now on, and there will be, I would guess, a Turnbull, Robbie or Smith government by September.

Things will move…

I’m sharing this post from Wendy Bacon that is by Jack Rozycki who is a journalist who is always worth following on facebook. Here is some more background that informs our understanding of Dyson Heydon.

“Dyson Heydon is not, as Antoine claimed in parliament today, some impartial judge from Planet Fair Shake. That would be an absurd claim. Every judge brings into the job some element of bias, and often even bigotry. Certainly, a partiality and a jaundiced eye of one kind of prejudice or another, based on their background and formative experience. Sometimes this is hidden from the public eye so some of us may be conned into thinking that the judgment is somehow impartial, even though it boils down to an opinion which is almost always informed by their beliefs, religious upbringing and political leanings.
Beware then a royal commissioner making a statement ex-cathedra, that is meant to sound as if it has come from pure reason, from god, as it were, and above suspicion.

But a bit of rummaging around the internet tells us that Dyson Heydon has form, apart from accepting the-now-notorious gig at a Liberal Party fundraiser. We can tell where he stands politically because he said so explicitly. He opined that the Labor governments of Rudd and Gillard, for example, were “non-substantive” – at an address to the free-market think-tank the Centre for Independent Studies in June 2013, in which he took aim at Labor’s regulation of the charities sector.

So he is a right-wing partisan figure and as such, not an ideal royal commissioner to sit in judgment of unions in what is really a contentious political star chamber. Unless, of course, your whole aim is not to get at some “truth” but instead you want to orchestrate a political stitch-up of your opponent.

There’s more. His political antecedents are as blue-blood Liberal as you can get. Charles Dyson Heydon Jnr, Dyson Heydon’s father, was Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies’ private secretary. In other words, Dyson Heydon and the Liberal Party go way back.
Dyson Heydon’s grandfather Charles Heydon was a politicised lawyer who did not hide his anti-labour movement, class-warrior views. When grandpa Heydon was president of the Court of Arbitration in 1915 he accused coal miners and coal carters of “fighting for the Germans” when the latter demanded a fair wage. Jack Lang called Charles Heydon “an enemy of the working class…”
Charles Heydon was a a prominent Catholic layman around the time of WWI and a fellow of St John’s College, University of Sydney.

In a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 November 1917 Charles Heydon attacked Archbishop Mannix’s anti-conscription stand and claimed that for “a Catholic Archbishop to lead his flock along the paths of sedition is to disobey the clearest teachings of the Catholic Church”. He was making this shit up, of course, using his position to invest a partisan view with gravitas. Following year he became vice-president of the “King’s Men”, a shadowy group who aimed at promoting loyalty to “our country and the Empire”.
Charles Dyson was a non-Irish Catholic (his father, Dyson Heydon’s great-grandfather, was a convert) and was at odds politically with the Catholics of Irish background who were largely working class and formed the backbone of the ALP at the time. Archbishop Mannix was an Irish-born Australian Catholic bishop and was not enamoured of the British who at just that time were trying to put down the Irish insurrection for independence.

It is clear from his own writing and speechmaking that Justice Dyson Heydon is an ultra-conservative militant Catholic of the English royalist kind. We can assert this because he was on the foundation council of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, when, coincidentally, the ACM’s first National Executive Director was Tony Abbott (1992 – 1994).

And also because he said THIS, last year, (AGAIN!) at the Centre for ­Independent Studies’ annual Acton Lecture for Religion and Freedom as reported in The Australian:

“Former High Court judge Dyson Heydon has warned of a dangerous revival of sectarianism in Australia. Mr Heydon said anti-­Catholicism has become ‘the racism of the intellectuals.’ Justice Heydon compared modern attacks on the Catholic faith to the anti-clerical kulturkampf crusade waged by German chancellor Otto von Bismarck in the late 19th century in an attempt to restrict the Church’s influence in public life.While anti-Catholicism in Australia was not orchestrated by the State, Justice Heydon said there were similar attempts ‘to stimulate hatred for a particular group and … a desire to isolate it by being offensive towards it.”Now there may be a new anti-Catholic movement particularly among our intellectuals. It’s intolerant, it’s hypocritical, it fails to recognise the extraordinary contribution of Australian Catholicism to many parts of Australian life.’He said the campaign was ‘more than anti-Catholic.”In Australia now there are campaigns against at least the Christian religion which are relatively novel,’ he said.

It is highly likely that Heydon Dyson talent-spotted Antoine at a young age at St John’s College as a far-right Catholic warrior for the ultra-conservative cause, directing him away from his DLP tendencies and helped him to get his Rhodes Scholarship – Dyson was on the selection panel which decided that Antoine would be anointed as a scholarship boy.

Whatever the views one might have about rorts perpetrated by rogue and corrupt union leaders (such as Kathy Jackson, for example), the royal commission we are having is by definition a party-political instrument as soon as it is instituted by the government and it puts an opposition leader on the stand. What’s much more, Antoine, by appointing his spiritual guru and benefactor to the $1million-a-year position of commissioner has overreached himself.

Further update and delays: SHOCKING NEW REVELATIONS:

Australian Council of Trade Unions
Thursday 27 August 2015

Statement from ACTU Secretary Dave Oliver regarding the Royal Commission into Trade Unions:
Acting on behalf of a number of affiliated unions, the ACTU has today written to the Royal Commission into Trade Unions following an article published in The Australian newspaper by Michael Pelly which suggests:
1. A well-known journalist and lawyer Marcus Priest, telephoned Mr Chris Winslow, the publications manager for the NSW Bar Association at 5.30 on August 12 and inquired about a ‘bar association alert’ put out in April 2015.
2. In the conversation, Mr Priest expressed surprise that Commissioner Heydon had agreed to speak at the event because of its connection to the Liberal Party.
3. In response to the call, Mr Winslow sent an email to Mr Priest with the relevant invitation to the event attached, at 5.50pm.
4. Later that evening, Mr Winslow became concerned that a story about the matter might be about to appear in the media.
5. Mr Winslow felt an obligation to inform Counsel Assisting Mr Jeremy Stoljar of his fear to that effect.
6. Mr Winslow emailed Mr Stoljar shortly after 7.00pm with an email which included the following: “Re the Barwick lecture: Does Dyson know this is connected to the Liberal party?”
7. Counsel Assisting replied to Mr Winslow almost immediately with a statement which included the following: “I’ll raise that with him.”

This disclosure raises concerns for the union movement. In particular that:

1. The explanation contained in the media release of the Royal Commission on 13 August 2015, that the Commissioner had acted to withdraw from the event (“if it could possibly be described as a Liberal party event”) before it attracted any media attention, might be misleading.
2. We believe there has been inadequate disclosure of relevant documents made by the Commission as to this matter.
3. That on 17 August in the initial hearing of the ACTU’s application, Counsel Assisting Mr Jeremy Stoljar, criticised the ACTU’s application as ‘grand-standing’ when in fact he knew the events described in this correspondence and today’s Australian article had not been disclosed to the ACTU or to the public.
As such the ACTU requests:
– The Commission urgently provide any emails or other communications which are referred to, or relate to, today’s article in The Australian.
– Once the material is received sufficient time be given to the ACTU to consider the information.
– A deferral of the handing down of the Commissioner’s ruling which is due to occur at 10am tomorrow morning so that the ACTU can consider the implications.

The ACTU has always maintained that the Royal Commission is a political witch hunt by Tony Abbott designed to weaken his political opponents.
When it came to light that Commissioner Dyson Heydon had agreed to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser we called on Prime Minister Tony Abbott to shut down the Royal Commission.
The ACTU again calls on the Prime Minister Tony Abbott to shut down the Royal Commission into Trade Unions and to stop wasting millions of tax payer dollars pursuing his own political agenda.


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

, , , , ,

Comments are closed.