Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
Ace investigative blogger Peter Wicks sends an open letter to Senators Brandis and Abetz, asking them to explain their inconsistent attitude towards the presumption of innocence.
Open Letter To Senators Brandis And Abetz
Peter Wicks
Peter Wicks
Wixxyleaks
PO Box 6362
Rouse Hill Town Centre
Rouse Hill NSW 2155
Senators Brandis and Abetz,
I am writing to you both in the hope that you may be able to share with myself, and my readers, some of your expertise on the presumption of innocence.
It has come to my attention, via the News Ltd press yesterday, that there are calls for Kathy Jackson to resign from the Health Services Union, for numerous allegations of corrupt practices.
I am also aware that there have also been calls for her partner, Michael Lawler, vice president of Fair Work Australia, to resign also. This has come as a result of allegations of him interfering with a Federal Investigation and after revelations emerged that he would not co-operate with the KPMG investigation initiated by FWA — in effect, allegedly refusing to co-operate with his own investigation.
I understand that the leader of your Party, Tony Abbott, has made his opinion of Kathy Jackson quite clear, comparing her to Joan Of Arc — saying she is heroic, and worthy of great admiration. I also note that it was Tony Abbott that appointed Michael Lawler to his current position. However, I also trust that you are both entitled to form your own opinions on this matter, and are not required to share the opinion of your leader.
My views on both of these cases are well known and I think I have published enough material for people to determine my opinion on their innocence or guilt.
However, right from the outset of this matter, I have held onto the belief of the notion of “innocent until proven guilty”. This is a belief and is, in fact, a right in this country, that I have held onto throughout the Peter Slipper investigation and indeed the investigation into Mal Brough; and I have also clearly held onto this opinion throughout the campaign against Craig Thomson.
Given your continued calls, or demands, for Craig Thomson to resign – calls that were made on the flimsiest of evidence, and based on an investigation that has been shown to be fatally flawed, to the point of it being worthless – I seek your expertise on the Lawler and Jackson cases. Especially considering the overwhelming trail of evidence on Jackson, in particular, and also bearing in mind that there appears to be more evidence against Lawler than there ever was against Thomson.
I also note that you both spoke out regarding Peter Slipper, and demanded that he step down from his position based on allegations that were seemingly ignored whist Slipper was a member of the Liberal Party.
With these things in mind, I am interested, as are my readers, to know whether you apply the same rules to Kathy Jackson, and Michael Lawler, as you have seemingly applied to Peter Slipper and Craig Thomson.
Whilst I encourage the media to give Jackson and Lawler the same level of scrutiny as they afforded Craig Thomson in order to show balance, I would not like to see them being portrayed as guilty before being given the opportunity to defend themselves in court. Kathy Jackson may even show up for court to do that.
My readers and I await your response and public statements on this issue, as the presumption of innocence is a right that the majority of Australian’s hold dear.
Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Wicks
PS: You can follow Peter Wicks on Twitter @madwixxy or read his blog Wixxyleaks. See the full investigation into Jacksonville.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
22 Comments
Good one Pete. Easy questions for the 2 learned gentlemen to answer. I am sure as they are both honest, diligent, fair minded Australians they will reply to your polite request quickly and with truthfullness. It is obvious they have discussed the Jackson/Lawler situation at length with their good friend and leader the Hon Anthony Abbott, Rhodes Scholar, and LOTO,former inmate of St Marys seminary and frequent recipient of absolution from Cardinal the Rev Geo Pell
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/gillard-paid-for-her-home-renovations-says-builder-kon-spyridis/story-fndo317g-1226457032938
And here is part of another guilty until proven innocent smear gone wrong.
Peter, don’t hold your breath waiting for an intelligent and non-evasive response.
Poor Tony Abbott must have forgotten Joan of Arc was burnt at the stake after she said heard voices in her head.
News Ltd really should be ashamed of their fishing expedition. They really have egg on their faces. And so should Tony Jones for even entertaining a question on Q & A over Gillard not showing the pompous Paul Kelly due deference.
Poor Janet A. claimed the PM had “questions to answer” just like C.Pyne keeps claiming. The second News Ltd voice on Q & A (why is any News Ltd columnist allowed on that show when they already have the majority of Australia outlets ?) Graham Richardson slithered around the Kelly question as only he can
I think you are being very unfair to George Brandis and Eric Abetz I believe that both of these gentlemen have proven integrity in investigating political wrongdoing: I would offer as evidence of that fact their systematic examination and research of the Kevin Rudd ‘Utegate Affair’; along with Godwin they came out of that matter with enhanced reputations – Poor Malcom??
I wish you every success Peter but I imagine by the time they read your name on the letter or email it would be in the waste bin, but keep the good work going we need more people to focus on the real issues
Richardson should look at his own murky past ….
Great work Peter.
It is excellent to see that a lot of this sorry saga is finally coming to a conclusion (especially seeing that the News Ltd BS machine is reporting it…..).
I look forward to seeing the cretins (Abbott, Abetz, Brandis, Pyne, Reith…..etc) squirm to distance themselves from Jacksonville.
Thanks Peter for this advocacy on my behalf. As one of your readers I await with baited breath the response from these two learned gentlemen.(goes blue in the face and silently passes away)
Hey, Peter. I would love to see this as a full page in the Australian newspaper. I wonder if they would accept your money??
Reading Julia Gillard’s 1995 Slater and Gordon transcript, it seems that David Feeney was doing a lot of scurrying around covering for Julia Gillard as she tried to get her AWU/renovations affairs in order.
“JG: Yes. I have, I have heard a rumour to the effect that someone attended at the offices of the AWU since the time that Bruce has left presenting an account which when the union enquired into it was an account for work on my property and that they refused to pay it. I heard that rumour firstly from Bernard Murphy who said to me that he had heard it from Andrew Watson. I subsequently spoke to Andrew Watson about it and said that David Feeney, who is an official of the Transport Workers’ Union, or an industrial officer of the Transport Workers’ Union, had raised it with Andrew with the specific intent of Andrew raising it with me and David was happy for me to talk to him about it.
[...snip complaints about Bill the Greek...]
Obviously, it accords with what David Feeney has told me that he was sent away by the AWU and without explanation an account from Con was put in my letter box last week, so that’s the first account that I’ve had from him. It is an account dated June directed towards me, yeah, I think that’s right, directed towards me, dated June and it’s got a letter on it, some of which is not decipherable but talks about finishing off the tiles.”
David Feeney is a close friend and supporter of Kathy Jackson. Does this explain why no one in the Labor Party will make any mention of Peter Wick’s work in, for example, the questioning of Terry Nassios? I mean how hard is it to say: “Were you aware, Mr Nassios, that the name on the credit card was misspelt?”
David Feeney has dirt on Julia Gillard and so uses her to protect his friend Kathy Jackson?
Um, you might want to illustrate just how you connect those dots to your conclusion there Grey, it is not exactly clear from the snippets. Would you mind explaining in your own words? Otherwise it kind of seems like Shane might be rubbing off on you.
And I like the idea of a full page ad for Peters letter.
OK – lets throw it open.
Why will no Labor politician ask Terry Nassios about the misspelt name on the credit card slip?
My theory is that friends of Kathy Jackson – David Feeney – has dirt on Julia Gillard (evidenced by his involvement in the 1995 Slater and Gordon affair) and pressures her to keep a lid on everything.
Any better ideas?
Can you tell me which Labour politicians have had the opportunity to formally interview Mr Nassios, where he is compelled to answer? And what date(s) that occurred?
I understand your theory, I just have no idea how you interperet that Feeney has ‘dirt’ on Gillard from your snippets. Hence the ‘connect the dots’. How are you getting from A to B? that is what I don’t understand. Can you deconstruct the snippets to show how you have arrived at this conclusion?
Nassios has appeared twice before Senate committees. I’ll let you find the exact dates yourself.
If he refused to answer a question and on any other grounds that avoid self-incrimination he would be in contempt and could be imprisoned by the Senate. A couple of journalists were threatened with that once.
So what you are saying is that you are making these accusations before fully investigating the subject, which as you say, I can easily find out for myself? Is that correct? The timeline of events here is important. I don’t have to look it up, I am not the one making an assertion, you are, and the onus of proof lies with you. I’m giving you the opportunity to convince me(and others I assume) by taking you seriously enough to ask for you to put up a strong case, otherwise, I’m afraid, I(and others) will simply dismiss you.
Grey >>> “My theory is that friends of Kathy Jackson – David Feeney – has dirt on Julia Gillard (evidenced by his involvement in the 1995 Slater and Gordon affair) and pressures her to keep a lid on everything.” ??
There appears to be a lot of Grey areas in these assumptions??
Fair enough Lawriejay, lets hear your alternative theory!
Oscar Jones thinks it is being stored up as some great dynamite to be exploded on the coalition just before the election. But since pre-selection for Dobell is in September I find this idea unlikely.
What is your theory?
Your scope is too narrow Grey. Don’t think Dobell, think Australia. And its also way off mark. Pre-selection is done by the party, not the constituents.
Please, we don’t need amateur muck raking around here, actually think your arguments through and maybe do some research before you start slandering people.
Wow!! 7.30 better late than never have finally come to acknowledge that perhaps all of ” joan of arcs” statements need to be reviewed.No cudos to Peter Wicks of course, the MSM will never admit that they dropped the ball in their hurry to convict Craig Thomson.
Not so Grey : I think the Slipper / Thomson affairs are slow burners with dreadful timing for the Coalition over the next year.
Providing of course, my (and others) theories are correct-that much skullduggery has gone on that puts Utegate to shame.
Tony Abbott has been far too hysterical with his support fro the accusers and nailed his support to their sinking masts. I’m realistic enough to know Labour would possibly do the same but handle it so much better.
Again Tony seems to have very little political nous apart from repeating mantras over and over which doesn’t work in the long run. His advisers aren’t good at this but then who would have a ‘fellow’ from the IPA on their case?.