Saturday 2 January 2016

So who is 'Mr. Apprehended Bias 2015' and what makes him tick?


Former High Court justice John Dyson Heydon AC QC presided over the federal Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. 

This commission was in existence for six hundred and sixty-five days from 13 March 2014 to 28 December 2015 and, there were a total of one hundred and eighty-nine hearings days in the capital cities of five states.

The cost to taxpayers was reported as in excess of $45.9 million. Heydon's own contract as a royal commissioner is estimated as worth between $1.5-$2 million of this.

Heydon produced a two volume Interim Report in December 2014 and his Final Report ran to six volumes with thirty-five appendices - the contents of the last approx.187-page volume (allegedly containing verifiable threats to witnesses) being kept secret from the public and only shared with the Coalition prime minister, members of his cabinet and senior staffer/s in the prime minister's office.

Heydon’s “Introduction and Overview” to this final report ran to one hundred and sixteen pages in which he used the qualifying word “may” one hundred and twenty-two times, based on a word check count.

Throughout the report the language used by Heydon was sometimes highly coloured and its pages contain a number of bold assertions that do not appear to be supported by hard fact.

After all that time and money, Heydon made seventy-nine law reform and/or 'political' recommendations, as well as referring two unions, two companies, thirty-five union members and and six other individuals to either the Fair Work Commission, Australian Securities and Investments Commission, state industrial relations commissions, police, public prosecutors, or a number of other federal and state agencies, for further consideration.

With the Australian Bureau of Statistics recording 1.57 million persons who were members of a union in their main job in August 2014, only finding thirty-seven 'suspect' unionists (or 0.00235% of est. union population) is not what might be called a good look for this very expensive royal commission which examined over five hundred witnesses. Especially as its findings assert the existence of an endemic culture of corruption within unions.

As one of the previous referrals flowing from the royal commission police taskforce resulted in a prosecution which was dropped by the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions in October 2015 with no evidence offered, one wonders how many of those final referrals will also dwindle away into nothing.

This particular royal commission has had distinct overtones of political bias from the very beginning, exacerbated by Heydon’s own unsatisfactorily self-tested apprehended bias.

So what manner of man is Dyson Heydon and how have others viewed him over time?

Commencing In December 2015 and working backwards to 1999, here is a small selection of opinions:




Journalist Damien Murphy in The Sydney Morning Herald article Commissioner Dyson Heydon: A man for all reasons, 30 December 2015:

He joins a short line of judges who have delivered similar decisions against unions such as the defunct Builders Labourers Federation, the Painters and Dockers, and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.

But only Mr Heydon achieved the singular honour of shooting himself in the foot with his own royal commission.

On August 31 this year, he administered the kiss of life to himself to save his own royal commission.

For 18 days he'd been drowning in a whirlpool of his own making. For much of that time Australia had been wondering how the former High Court of Australia justice could save himself and breathe life back into his Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption.

It emerged Mr Heydon had agreed in April to deliver the 6th Sir Garfield Barwick Address, a fundraising event organised by a branch of the Liberal Party, and had "overlooked" the political aspect of his dining companions.

The matter bubbled away while Mr Heydon continued to conduct his hearings.

On August 17, Fairfax Media reported that Mr Heydon, a former Rhodes Scholar, was on the panel that awarded then prime minister Tony Abbott his Rhodes scholarship.

Unions went ballistic.

Four days later the ACTU, AWU and CFMEU all made applications in the commission for Mr Heydon to step down.

His opponents saw it as a question of propriety. Mr Heydon, and the government who appointed him, saw it purely in legal terms.

Known as a loner with a love for black letter law, an aversion to computers and an apparent fear of emails, Mr Heydon, 72, served as a justice of the High Court of Australia between 2003-2013 after being a justice of the NSW Court of Appeal.

Previously he'd been dean of the Sydney Law School. He'd retired from the High Court at the constitutionally mandated age of 70 and picked up the trade union royal commission as a retirement gig.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 August 2015:


Gabrielle Appleby and Heather Roberts writing in Bias and the ‘black-letter’ judge: who is Dyson Heydon? [The Conversation, 21 August 2015]:

There is no doubt that Heydon was and is a brilliant legal mind, with a very firm grip on the applicable law. His distinguished legal and judicial career is credit to that.

Heydon’s legal brilliance did not guarantee, however, that he was influential while on the High Court. His approach was increasingly out of step with the court’s other members, particularly in the areas of implied rights and limits on government power, which he was reluctant to extend. His dissent rates would eventually earn him the moniker the “Great Dissenter”, and his frustration became increasingly evident in the tone of his judgments.

As a judge, Heydon also exhibited a particularly visible form of independence. Constitutional law academics Andrew Lynch and George Williams have referred to this as his pronounced “individualism”. By 2012, the year prior to his retirement, Heydon wrote every one of his judgments alone, even when he joined the result of the other justices.

Also in 2012, Heydon delivered another speech that caused a stir in the legal profession. It went part of the way to explaining his individualism. He referred to what he thought was one of the most dangerous threats to judicial independence: the pressure on judges to participate in joint judgments and the elevation of consensus as a value over individual intellectual integrity.

There is a degree of sad irony that, as royal commissioner, Heydon has found himself steeped in controversy alleged to be undermining public confidence in the integrity of the justice system. Heydon prided himself throughout his judicial career – and rightly so – on the robust independence and intellectual integrity he brought to the role.

It is important to be clear that the claim made against Heydon is one of apprehended bias only. The test for apprehended bias is whether a “fair-minded lay observer” might reasonably apprehend that Heydon’s impartiality has been compromised by his conduct.

It might seem incongruous for a member of the general public to understand why Heydon is being asked to apply the test to himself. There is a whiff of apprehended bias in the very idea.

It is true that this practice accords with the ordinary legal process for apprehended bias claims. A person against whom an apprehended bias claim is made is expected to apply the test objectively by reference to the standards of the fair-minded lay observer. According to a traditional black-letter approach, the individual’s personal feelings will simply not enter the decision.

But can, as Heydon has argued throughout his judicial career, legal tests really be objectively applied by reference only to the law in the books – and unaffected, consciously or subconsciously, by the individual judges’ background, interest, values and morals? This question has given rise to some of the great ongoing debates of legal philosophy.

Excerpts from the pen of Allan C. Hutchinson in "Heydon' Seek: Looking for Law in the Wrong Places" [2003, Monash University Law Review 85]:

As already should be clear, I am sceptical about the possibility of there being a definitive and cogent account of the common law's operation in line with traditional claims and ambitions. Nevertheless, I was excited to be told on my arrival in Australia that there was a recent paper that attempted to do just that. I eagerly obtained this essay by a former academic and now Justice of the Australian High Court, Dyson Heydon. The title of his paper, Judicial Activism and The Death of The Rule of Law, should have immediately tipped me off to what was to follow.' Still, knowing little of Heydon personally or professionally and knowing almost as little about Australian recent judicial history, I set to reading the written version of his speech to the Quadrant Dinner in October 2002. The author was clearly a polished and sophisticated fellow who peppered his talk with witty asides and sprightly anecdotes. Yet, beneath the gloss and erudition, the paper offered a very radical and almost anachronistic account of the common law. Indeed, my first reaction was to think that the date on the paper must be wrong as it read like something from 1902 rather than 2002. Heydon offered a rendition of the Rule of Law and the common law that was as fundamentalist in its formalism as any I could remember reading in any century, let alone the 21st century. For Heydon, judges can only fulfil their judicial duties by scrupulously attending to the law's formal structure alone: almost any consideration of the law's moral or political content is anathema. While I would normally recommend that such an audacious and frankly improbable proposal be ignored, the fact that it is espoused by the most recent appointee to the High Court means that it warrants serious debunking and outright rejection…..

In his incendiary jurisprudential intervention, Dyson Heydon makes it clear from the outset that the whole project of modern jurisprudence is mistaken and a betrayal of the common law tradition. Identifying proudly and explicitly with 'hanging judges' of yore, he idolises 'that evil old man in scarlet robe and horse hair wig, whom nothing short of dynamite will ever teach what century he is living in, but who will at any rate interpret the law according to the books and ... is a symbol of the strange mixture of reality and illusion, democracy and privilege, humbug and decency, the subtle network of compromises, by which the nation keeps itself in its familiar shape'.  This is stirring and disturbing stuff. Heydon leaves no doubt that '[interpretation of] the law according to the books must be scrupulously adhered to by judges as this is the most effective 'bar to untrammelled discretionary power? Depicting judges as wild ideological animals who, if left unharnessed, will wreak political mayhem on an unsuspecting public, he offers an ideal judge who is 'an independent arbiter not affected by self-interest or partisan duty, applying a set of principles, rules and procedures having objective existence and operating in paramountcy to any other organ of state and to any other source of power'.  This means that so powerful and reliable is 'the disinterested application ... of known law drawn from existing and discoverable legal sources independently of the personal beliefs of the judgeI6 that it can hold in check herds of rogue officials. Moreover, so tamed and tethered, these institutional pets can be trusted to have supreme power in the polity….

For Heydon, the recent history of Australian common law is a morality play in which the dark hordes of judicial activism have begun to eclipse the established forces of legal enlightenment. Rallying the judicial troops around a battle-cry of 'Back To The Future', he urges that time is well past to repel such interlopers and to return the common law to its traditional grandeur. Unless swift action is taken, the common law is destined to be sullied by those 'using judicial power for a purpose other than that for which it was granted, namely doing justice according to law in the particular case'? In this scenario, the initial assault of the dark activists forces can be traced back to the 1970s and the villains of the piece are Anthony Mason and Lionel Murphy. Inveigling their way in to high judicial office, these usurpers professed allegiance to the common law, but only better to hijack it for their own political purposes. With some wit and savvy, these ne'erdo-wells began to abandon the orthodoxies of the common law and replace it with new credos of their own design: 'the soignt, fastidious, civilised, cultured and cultivated patricians of the progressive judiciary - our new philosopher-kings and enlightened despots - are in truth applying the values which they hold, and which they think the poor simpletons of the vile multitude ... ought to hold even though they do not'." Presumably aided by a duped band of other High Court judges, the terrible two set about abandoning old tried-and-true rules and replacing them with newfangled and controversial doctrines which were little more than rough distillations of their own political agendas. Indeed, if Heydon is to be believed, Australian common law is quickly going to political hell in a judicial handcart. It is only with a return to traditional legal values and judicial methods that such an ignominious fate can be avoided…..

From the Strewth column in The Australian, 20 December 2002:

DYSON Heydon may have snared a prized position on the High Court following his controversial speech contra judicial activism. He appears, however, to have peeved a few of the blokes he pinged in the diatribe that some suggest was pivotal to his appointment. Strewth hears former chief justices, and knights of the realm, Gerard Brennan and Anthony Mason, will not be attending Heydon's swearing-in when Mary Gaudron, pictured, retires in February. In the fraternity that is the old boys' association of the High Court it is customary for all manner of former judicial officers, friends, relatives and other hangers-on to front for the boys' own initiation ceremony. So the absence of the two immediate past chief justices will be conspicuous. Heydon made some fairly pointed personal remarks about the Mason-era court of 1987-95, and did a demolition job on the 1992 Mabo case in which Brennan wrote the lead judgment. Yesterday Mason refused to comment on Heydon's attack on him, or whether he would attend the swearing-in, and Brennan's chambers also delivered a firm "no comment". Gezza and Tone aren't the only people cheesed off.

Journalist David Solomon writing in The Courier Mail article A law unto themselves, 19 December 2002 issue, p.15:

Heydon is the fourth appointment made by the Howard Government, so its nominees to the bench now constitute a majority of the court. In just three terms in office the Government has been able to put its own stamp on the court, to reverse the more liberal tendencies of the High Court under Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason (though he was first appointed to the court by the McMahon government in 1972, and some of the appointees of the Hawke or Keating governments were far from radical in their approach to the law).

This Government made no secret of its intention of using its appointments to the High Court to change its jurisprudence. Following the Wik decision in 1996, when the court unexpectedly held that native title could exist in remote areas covered by pastoral leases in Queensland, then deputy prime minister Tim Fischer declared the Government would appoint "three capital-C conservatives" to the court. It did so during the next year. And Dyson Heydon is the fourth.

Journalist Valerie Lawson in The Age article Library speaks volumes for His Honour's passions, 19 December 2002:

John Dyson Heydon can't sleep. It has nothing to do with his appointment as a judge of the High Court. It's a habit of his years at the New South Wales bar.
He tends to begin his day at 3 am, writing judgments, writing books, reviewing military history.
He is not alone in the small hours. The 59-year-old works in the company of Napoleon (a marble bust), the Duke of Wellington (a statue), and a library full of history. He can recount any battle in detail."
His life has been as orderly as his library since the time he swapped his rugby days as "Dirty Dyson" (always covered with mud), to become a professor of law and a barrister….
Married to Pamela for 25 years, and father of Victoria, Christina, Alexandra and Nicholas, Justice Heydon, QC, is the very model of a modern North Shore citizen. He lives at Turramurra, and has a weekender at Robertson, NSW….

Valerie Lawson in The Sydney Morning Herald article Silence on QC's rush to judgment, 11 February 2000 issue, p.7:

The State Government and the legal profession yesterday stonewalled questions on the controversial appointment of Mr Dyson Heydon, QC, to the NSW Court of Appeal.
Neither the Attorney-General, Mr Shaw, nor the Chief Justice, Justice Jim Spigelman, would comment.
But while the legal profession publicly praised Mr Heydon's "eminence" lawyers privately found it peculiar that he will be sworn in on Monday just three months before his own appeal over a $7 million judgment against him is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal.
The question on everyone's lips was: what's the rush?
The State Government and the legal profession yesterday stonewalled questions on the controversial appointment of Mr Dyson Heydon, QC, to the NSW Court of Appeal.
Neither the Attorney-General, Mr Shaw, nor the Chief Justice, Justice Jim Spigelman, would comment.
But while the legal profession publicly praised Mr Heydon's "eminence" lawyers privately found it peculiar that he will be sworn in on Monday just three months before his own appeal over a $7 million judgment against him is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal.
The question on everyone's lips was: what's the rush?

David Marr in The Sydney Morning Herald article Pm Brings Some PantomimeTo A Court's Silent Mark Of Power, 18 May 1999:

Dyson Heydon, QC, arrived in a particularly dilapidated wig. He and a couple of Sydney law firms were ordered last week to pay $21 million damages to the NRMA. The big question at the Sydney Bar these days is: how much was Heydon's cover? As he passed along the lines of his black-robed colleagues, they offered shy pats of reassurance. He barely flinched. *Heydon and the law firms won on appeal on 21 December 2000 at which time he was a Justice in the NSW Court of Appeal* 

Last but not least is Dyson Heydon’s view of many of his fellow judges and of all of us found at the Barnold Law blog, 2 September 2009:

Heydon sniffed in relation to Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106 that 

the soignĂ©, fastidious, civilised, cultured and cultivated patricians of the progressive judiciary – our new philosopher-kings and enlightened despots – are in truth applying the values which they hold, and which they think the poor simpletons of the vile multitude – the great beast, as Alexander Hamilton called it – ought to hold even though they do not. The trouble is that persons adhering to different values or different perceptions of need or different aspirations tend to be at risk of being ruthlessly waved out of all decent society as enemies of the people. [my red bolding]

Friday 1 January 2016

Arise, Sir Lizard of Oz


The Daily Mail 27 December 2015:

In 2001 then Australian prime minister, John Howard, gave Crosby the Centenary Medal "for 
service to Australian society through politics" and in 2005 arranged for him to become an Officer of the Order of Australia "for service to politics as federal director of the Liberal Party of Australia".

On 1 January 2016 he became a knight bachelor "for political service" to the Conservative Party.

One wonders - will the newly knighted Sir Lynton Crosby be coming back to bolster the Turnbull Government's chances of getting over the line in 2016?

While I was away........


After a prolonged absence from blogging due to illness, here is a little catchup from the period July to December 2015.

* NSW Premier and Liberal MP for Manly Mike Baird puts "lipstick on a pig" by calling for an increase in the Goods & Service Tax (GST) to 15 per cent. 

* The community consultation dialogue between ratepayers and Clarence Valley Council over proposed consecutive rate rises every year for the next five years remained as colourful as ever:
* One of Australia’s most influential women, former Federal Labor MP for Page Janelle Saffin announced she will be standing against sitting Nationals MP Kevin Hogan at the 2016 federal election. [Echo Netdaily, 23 September 2015]
_______________

* Clarence Valley Council changed its logo to:
And not everyone was happy.               
        _______________

* Coal seam gas company Metgasco Limited finally bowed to people power and walked away from its exploration leases on the NSW North Coast with a state government compensation cheque totaling $25 million in its back pocket:
* The NSW Nationals used Twitter to take credit for Metgasco’s capitulation – which saw a predictable response:

* The strength of NSW gun laws was demonstrated to a retiree living on Palmer's Island in the Clarence Valley:


* On 17 December 2015 The Daily Examiner published an article titled The 600 major companies that paid less tax than you, but neglected to tell its readers that it was owned by one of these very same companies, APN NEWS & MEDIA  LTD, which had an income of $310.3 million in the 2013-14 financial year.  A total of $21.2 million of this was considered taxable income, yet this company had no tax payable listed for that financial year.
* That one-time darling of the Liberal-Nationals federal government, Kathy Jackson, got her comeuppance:


The disgraced union leader declared bankruptcy in June, on the opening day of HSU Federal Court proceedings which resulted in her being ordered to pay $1.4m to the union as compensation for up to $2.5m misappropriated from members while she was its national secretary between 2008 and February this year.
But her discharge from bankruptcy will only remain in place for three years, meaning the HSU may be able to continue to recoup some of the money she owes after that time.
On Tuesday, Ms Jackson's bill increased by $997,349, when judge Richard Tracey ordered she pay $554,215.67 in interest, $356,500 in legal costs and $86,633.81 in appeal costs.
Brisbane-based commercial barrister Gavin Handran, listed in the most recent Doyles Guide as one of Australia's leading insolvency and reconstruction junior counsels, said Ms Jackson solicited bankruptcy too early.
"The order for costs, circa $350,000, made by Justice Tracey on 21 December is not a debt provable in her bankruptcy even though it relates to a damages award made before bankruptcy," Mr Handran said. "The HSU may accordingly enforce that order against her, perhaps resulting in her again becoming bankrupt or surrendering any assets she acquires in the interim, after her current bankruptcy ends." Mr Handran said the law applied differently to interest and costs. "She might be safe with the interest," he said.
"I suspect what Kathy Jackson did, like so many in her troubled circumstances, was that she ran off on first day and filed for bankruptcy. That was premature.

"It's particularly important for the HSU workers to understand that she's not out of the woods. The sword still hangs over her head." "Not only does she face the real prospect of re-entering bankruptcy after she emerges from this period, but there's also the possibility that the HSU, depending on a cost-benefit analysis, may examine her under oath in the Federal Court, with the assistance of the bankruptcy trustee, to ascertain whether she's transferred any assets to a third party or (her partner, Michael) Lawler." HSU national secretary Chris Brown said the union was "alive to the possibility" of Ms Jackson facing a second round of bankruptcy, or interrogation over the transfer of assets. The union was still determining how it would approach the matter. [The Australian, 24 December 2015, p.5]
                                                                 _______________

* NSW Coalition Premier Mike Baird thought his ability to waste $500,000 of taxpayers' money deserved a tweet or two:
Go to http://www.stonersloth.com.au/ to see the Australian version of Reefer Madness that Baird signed off on.
_______________

There were 222 industrial disputes in Australia during the year ended September 2015, involving 78,000 individuals in a workforce of est. 11.7 million people. The majority of these ‘strikes’ appear to have lasted 2 days or less.

This low level of disputes does not please former prime minister Tony Abbott who, living in a time long past, argued in December 2015 for a tougher approach to breaking up illegal union pickets, saying police forces “around our country” had to be prepared to “uphold the law and not simply keep the peace … A lot of police forces have been traditionally reluctant to break picket lines where picket lines have been preventing people from going about their ordinary lawful business”.
                                                                  _______________

* Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon delivered his discredited final report on union governance and corruption to the Australian Governor-General on 28 December. The full report can be found at: https://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/reports/Pages/default.aspx.

It came as no surprise that Dyson Mr.Apprehended Bias 2015 Heydon decided that Kathy Jackson was really a hero who just happened to embezzle over $1.4 million dollars:




_______________

* The independent Q&A Review Final Report released in December 2015 appears to have discovered that this ABC program is skewed in favour of the government of the day:

Conservative flying monkeys dropped from Australian skies in shock.
_______________

* WorkChoices Mark 2 appears to be forming on the horizon ahead of this year’s federal election:

Former workplace relations minister Eric Abetz says the Fair Work Commission cannot ignore calls to reduce Sunday penalty rates, if as expected the Productivity Commission recommends the move on Monday.
Senator Abetz was the workplace relations minister until the Liberal leadership change and cabinet reshuffle in September.
Speaking ahead of the Productivity Commission's release of its final report into the industrial relations system, he told Fairfax Media the review must be respected by the Fair Work Commission which sets wages and entitlements. [The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 December 2015]

The recommendations — laid out in the commission's final report into workplace relations released on Monday — would affect workers in the entertainment, hospitality and retail industries, if adopted.
The commission did not recommend any changes to overtime penalty rates, night penalty rates or shift loadings, nor changes to rates for nurses, teachers or emergency services workers.
"Penalty rates have a legitimate role in compensating employees for working long hours or at asocial times," it stated.
"However, Sunday penalty rates for hospitality, entertainment, retailing, restaurants and cafes are inconsistent across similar work, anachronistic in the context of changing consumer preferences, and frustrate the job aspirations of the unemployed and those who are only available for work on Sunday.
"Rates should be aligned with those on Saturday, creating a weekend rate for each of the relevant industries."
Announcing the report's findings, Employment Minister Michaelia Cash said the Government would examine the recommendations and, if the case for sensible and fair changes to workplace relations were outlined, they would be taken to the next election. [ABC News, 21 December 2015]

ACT Liberal senator Zed Seselja said the Coalition should argue for a cut in Sunday penalty rates at next year's election.
"The Productivity Commission has done some really important work here," Senator Seselja he said.
"I think that we should be looking to put some policies to the next election which make incremental reforms in this area that go down the path the Productivity Commission is recommending.
"In the hospitality industry, in particular, that's where I hear the most from business owners, that's where I think the reforms should be occurring, and I think that's the sort of thing that we could develop a policy to take to an election." [ABC News, 21 December  2015]
Pharmacists in Australia have voted to launch industrial action for the first time, starting Christmas Eve, as a national pharmacy chain moves to slash penalty rates. It comes amid tense debate over a proposed Australia-wide rollback of Sunday penalty rates for workers in hospitality, retail and entertainment jobs, following an inquiry by the Productivity Commission. Pharmacists employed at dozens of National Pharmacies sites across Victoria and South Australia will now become the first in their profession to take action against an employer, as anger rises over threats to their penalty rates. From Thursday, pharmacists will embark on a campaign against National Pharmacies, authorising strikes of up to 24 hours that could force the temporary closure of some sites if the deadlock continues. The campaign this week will begin with pharmacists refusing to perform a range of work duties. National Pharmacies is attempting to cut pharmacists' penalty rates by as much as 50 per cent for certain hours on Saturday shifts. Double-time Sunday rates would remain in place. The company also wants to lower overtime pay, freeze the wages of existing pharmacists and introduce a two-tiered pay scheme, according to the union. In a statement, National Pharmacies said the pressures of a competitive and uncertain marketplace had forced a need to align with the rest of the industry. [The Sydney Morning Herald, 23 December 2015, p.4]
_______________

* It became obvious that local thoughts had begun to turn to the 2016 election of councillors:
   
                                                             
Excerpts from Clarence Valley Rate Payers, Residents and Business Owners Facebook page - featuring Deputy Mayor Cr. Craig Howe & the artwork of a ratepayer.
_______________

With the national terrorism threat level still fixed as "PROBABLE" by the Turnbull Government, DIBP and presumably many in Border Farce took an eleven day Chrissie holiday:

_______________

On 29 December The Guardian reported that the Turnbull ministry is three and a half months old and already there are two casualties. One looks fairly straightforward. The other, not so. In both cases, Malcolm Turnbull is well rid of them under the circumstances….
Jamie Briggs resigned after he “interacted” with a female public servant in an “informal manner” in a late night bar on an overseas trip. She complained he had acted inappropriately…..
The other casualty was Mal Brough, the former special minister of state. This is more opaque and the stink has a potential to linger given Brough has promised only to step aside, not resign…..

Background on Mal Brough “stink” by barrister Ross Bowler.
_______________

********** Happy New Year from North Coast Voices **********

http://www.azhappynewyear2016hdwallpaper.com/

After an absence of 228 days this blog is once more posting.