• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO TRADE UNION GOVERNANCE AND CORRUPTION

Public Hearing

(Day 3)

Level 5, 55 Market Street, Sydney

On Tuesday, 10 June 2014 at 10.00am

Before the Commissioner: The Hon. John Dyson Heydon AC QC

Counsel Assisting: Mr Jeremy Stoljar SC Mr Michael Elliott

Instructed by: Minter Ellison, Solicitors

.10/06/2014 (3) 181 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. 2 3 MR STOLJAR: Commissioner, on 12 and 13 May 2014, the 4 Commission heard evidence concerning the Australian 5 Workers' Union Workplace Reform Association, which I'll 6 just refer to as "the association". The hearings 7 commencing today will continue to examine the activities of 8 the association. In addition, the hearings commencing 9 today will examine the activities of another fund 10 associated with the Australian Workers' Union, namely the 11 AWU Members' Welfare account. The hearings commencing 12 today are listed to continue until Friday, 13 June 2014 and 13 the hearings on this topic will then resume in Perth on 23 14 June 2014. There will be further hearings in relation to 15 the association and the members' welfare account subsequent 16 to the hearings in Perth. 17 18 It may be useful to begin by summarising briefly the 19 evidence received by the Commission on 12 May 2014 in 20 relation to the association. The association was 21 incorporated in Western Australia in June 1992. From about 22 April 1992 it began issuing invoices to Theiss Contractors 23 Pty Limited, I'll refer to that company as "Thiess", in 24 relation to workplace reform services allegedly provided by 25 the association to Thiess in connection with the Dawesville 26 Channel project. On the evidence given on 12 and 13 May 27 2014, no such work was carried out. To the extent that the 28 invoices issued by the association suggested that workplace 29 reform services had been provided during the years 1992 and 30 1993, those invoices were false. 31 32 Similar evidence was given in connection with a 33 separate project known as Melbourne Water. Again, invoices 34 were issued by the association in connection with services 35 allegedly provided by the association to Thiess in 36 connection with Melbourne Water when in fact no such work 37 was done. As a result of the issuing of such invoices, the 38 association accumulated some hundreds of thousands of 39 dollars in various Commonwealth Bank accounts. 40 41 The moneys so collected were used for various purposes 42 unconnected with advancing the interests of the AWU or its 43 members, including to paying part of the purchase of a 44 property at 85 Kerr Street, Fitzroy. 45 46 In the hearings listed to commence today, the evidence 47 of a further 15 witnesses will be called as follows:

.10/06/2014 (3) 182 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Sydney witnesses, first, Ian Walter Cambridge. 2 Mr Cambridge is currently a Commissioner for the Fair Work 3 Commission. In the early 1990s he was an official at the 4 AWU. He describes the background to the circumstances in 5 which the AWU first became aware of the activities of 6 Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt. In particular, he describes how, 7 at a meeting of the AWU's finance committee on 2 August 8 1995, details as to the members' welfare account were 9 revealed. 10 11 Mr Cambridge also provides an analysis of the bank 12 accounts of both the association and the members' welfare 13 account, together with a number of other funds or accounts 14 associated with Mr Wilson. 15 16 The second witness is Nicholas Neil Jukes. Mr Jukes 17 was in the early 1990s the general manager for Thiess in 18 Western Australia. He had discussions with Mr Wilson 19 concerning the proposal pursuant to which the AWU would 20 provide a representative to assist it implement workplace 21 reform services. Mr Jukes also wrote to the billing and 22 construction industry training fund seeking funding for a 23 full-time trainer for the project. 24 25 The third witness is Olivia Nora Palmer. 26 Ms Palmer was in the early 1990s working as a legal 27 assistant for the law firm Slater & Gordon. She had 28 day-to-day carriage of the conveyancing in respect of the 29 Kerr Street property. 30 31 The fourth witness is Konstantinos Spyridis. 32 Mr Spyridis was a builder. His evidence is to the effect 33 that he carried out work in respect of the AWU offices at 34 Carlton and also in respect of a property at 36 Phillip 35 Street, Abbotsford. Mr Spyridis said he did not undertake 36 any work at the Kerr Street property. He gives evidence to 37 the effect that he was paid for work carried out by him on 38 the Abbotsford property by the owner of that property. 39 40 The fifth witness is Mr Athol James. Mr James is a 41 builder. He also did work on the Abbotsford property. 42 Mr James said that he observed Mr Wilson handing cash to 43 the owner of that property to enable her to pay for the 44 work carried out by Mr James. 45 46 The sixth witness is Wayne John Hem. Mr Hem was an 47 employee of the AWU at the relevant time. He gives

.10/06/2014 (3) 183 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 evidence to the effect that at the request of Mr Wilson, he 2 deposited the sum of $5,000 in cash into a bank account 3 maintained by the owner of the Abbotsford property. He 4 also deposes that he saw Mr Telikostoglou pay cash to a 5 tradesman at the Abbotsford property. 6 7 The seventh witness is Robert John Kernohan. 8 Mr Kernohan was an official at the AWU during the early 9 1990s. He has given a statement in which he indicates, 10 among other things, that he was provided with the sum of 11 $6,500 to assist with election expenses by Mr Wilson. 12 13 We then come to the Perth witnesses. The next witness 14 will be Christine Anne Campbell. Ms Campbell was in the 15 early 1990s Mr Wilson's secretary at the Perth office of 16 the WA branch of the AWU. 17 18 The ninth witness is Mr Mark Ronald Crofts. Mr Crofts 19 was at the relevant time an employee of Woodside and 20 describes the circumstances in which Woodside received 21 payments from the AWU Members' Welfare account. 22 23 The next witness will be Mr George Dean. Mr Dean is 24 and was at the relevant time an employee of Thiess. In 25 1992, he worked on the Dawesville Channel project. His 26 evidence is summarised further below. 27 28 The next witness will be Colin Gibson. Mr Gibson was 29 also an employee of Woodside. He gives evidence concerning 30 his dealings with Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt. 31 32 The next witness will be Tony Alexander Lovett. 33 Mr Lovett was an organiser employed by the AWU in 1992 and 34 1993. His duties included providing services to AWU 35 members working on the Dawesville Channel project. 36 37 The next witness will be Brian Douglas Pulham. 38 Mr Pulham is and was at the relevant time an employee at 39 Thiess. He approved the invoices issued by the association 40 to Thiess for the period April 1992 to September 1993 in 41 respect to the Dawesville Channel project. 42 43 The next witness will be Colin Geoffrey Saunders. 44 Mr Saunders was an industrial officer employed by the AWU 45 in the early 1990s. Part of his responsibilities included 46 the Dawesville Channel project. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 184 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 The last of the 15 witnesses will be Mr Steve Schalit. 2 Mr Schalit was employed by Thiess during the relevant 3 period. He was a project engineers on the Dawesville 4 Channel project. Following Mr Pulham's promotion 5 Mr Schalit approved invoices issued by the association to 6 Thiess for the period October 1993 to October 1994. 7 Mr Schalit reported to Brian Pulham. 8 9 THE COMMISSIONER: You mentioned 15 witnesses but there is 10 one more, I think among the group of Sydney witnesses and 11 that's Mr Wilson. 12 13 MR STOLJAR: Yes. Mr Wilson certainly will be a witness. 14 He's in a slightly different category from the 15 in that 15 he has put on a statement of his own and will be examined 16 on that statement. He is not one of the witnesses 17 propounded by the Commission among the 15. 18 19 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. 20 21 MR STOLJAR: It is expected, Commissioner, that Mr Wilson 22 will be examined on his statement on Thursday and perhaps 23 going into Friday. 24 25 Could I then come to the matters established by the 26 evidence that will be called, at least so far as it affects 27 the association. For present purposes, the first critical 28 issue is whether the association was in fact providing 29 workplace reform services to Thiess in respect of the 30 Dawesville Channel project between 1992 and 1994. 31 32 It seems clear that neither Mr Blewitt nor Mr Wilson 33 were themselves providing workplace reform services at the 34 Dawesville Channel project. Mr Wilson does not suggest he 35 did any such work. Mr Wilson had moved to Melbourne from 36 about mid-July 1992. The starting point is with the 37 evidence of persons who were actually working on the 38 Dawesville Channel project during those years and who would 39 have been in a position to know if a representative of the 40 association had been providing workplace reform services. 41 42 In the early 1990s the WA branch of the AWU employed 43 two organisers or officers who attended at the Dawesville 44 Channel project on a regular basis, Mr Colin Saunders and 45 Mr Tony Lovett. As I've already indicated, the Commission 46 will be calling evidence from each of Mr Lovett and 47 Mr Saunders.

.10/06/2014 (3) 185 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Mr Saunders's evidence is to the effect that, one, he 3 never heard of the association at the time and, two, he was 4 not aware that Thiess was paying the association for the 5 provision of workplace reform services. 6 7 Mr Lovett also deposes that he was not aware of the 8 existence of the association. He will say that his duties 9 did not include training or the facilitation of training of 10 personnel at the site. He says that apart from himself and 11 Mr Saunders, he was not aware of any AWU organiser who 12 would attend at the Dawesville Channel project. 13 14 One then comes to the evidence of Mr George Dean. He 15 was employed by Thiess, not by the AWU, but while working 16 on the Dawesville Channel project he was elected by the 17 workers as shop steward. In that capacity he liaised with 18 the AWU. Mr Dean's evidence is that he dealt with the two 19 AWU organisers just mentioned, Mr Lovett and Mr Saunders. 20 He cannot recollect any other officials from the AWU coming 21 to the site, nor can he remember any AWU personnel coming 22 out to the site to promote training programs. He cannot 23 remember any training portables on the site. 24 25 These three witnesses were on the ground at the 26 Dawesville Channel project. They were also employed by or 27 closely associated with the WA branch of the AWU. It will 28 be submitted that it is simply not credible that a 29 representative of the association was providing hundreds of 30 hours of training or workplace reform services per month 31 yet none of these witnesses was aware of it. Thus, the 32 evidence of these three witnesses strongly suggests that 33 the association was not in truth providing any workplace 34 reform services at the Dawesville Channel project, despite 35 regularly sending invoices for such work. 36 37 The next step is to consider the situation from the 38 point of view of the recipient of the association's 39 invoices, Thiess. Unsurprisingly, senior management at 40 Thiess was not aware of precisely what was happening on the 41 ground at the Dawesville Channel project. Mr Jukes was the 42 general manager for Western Australia at the relevant time. 43 His evidence is that he understood, from discussions with 44 either Mr Trio or Mr Pulham, that the AWU provided a 45 representative to facilitate training of Thiess workers on 46 the Dawesville Channel project. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 186 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 However, Mr Jukes says that he believes that the 2 services provided waned over the course of the project. 3 Mr Jukes does not know the names of the representatives he 4 believed the AWU provided. 5 6 The telling point for present purposes is that 7 Mr Jukes's knowledge or understanding derived from 8 information provided to him by two other Thiess employees, 9 namely Mr Trio and Mr Pulham. Mr Trio was the manager 10 Western Australia. He reported to Mr Jukes. Mr Trio had 11 ultimate responsibility for the Dawesville Channel project. 12 However, Mr Trio worked from the Thiess offices in Perth. 13 He did not have day-to-day contact with what was happening 14 on the site. Mr Trio says that the Dawesville Channel's 15 construction was initially controlled by Mr Pulham but 16 during the course of the project, Mr Pulham was promoted 17 and his position was filled by Mr Schalit. Mr Schalit 18 continued to report to Mr Pulham. 19 20 Mr Trio says that to his knowledge no individual at 21 Thiess had responsibility for ensuring that there was an 22 AWU employed representative on site at all times to 23 facilitate the implementation of training. Mr Trio thought 24 that the association was part of the AWU. He thought that 25 the AWU would provide the training on site or from Perth, 26 as the project demanded. 27 28 Mr Trio will say, further, that he relied on the 29 approval of the managers beneath him, Mr Pulham and later 30 Mr Schalit, to confirm that the hours charged by the AWU 31 were fair and reasonable. One then comes to Mr Pulham. He 32 personally approved, from about April 1992 to September 33 1993 inclusive, invoices from the association by writing 34 "okay to pay" on the invoice. 35 36 Mr Pulham's evidence is that his procedure when 37 approving invoices issued by the association was to check 38 that the hours claimed in the invoice were in accordance 39 with the letter of agreement from Thiess to the association 40 dated 16 March 1992. In other words, Mr Pulham did not go 41 further and ensure that a representative from the 42 association was actually present on site or was actually 43 providing workplace reform services. Mr Pulham says that 44 he recalls that two AWU organisers, Mr Tony Lovett and 45 Colin Saunders, were on site at the Dawesville project at 46 various times and that he, Mr Pulham, assumed that one or 47 both was the association's representative. As already

.10/06/2014 (3) 187 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 discussed, however, both Mr Saunders and Mr Lovett will be 2 called and in fact neither was a representative of the 3 association. Thus, for at least the first 21 months of the 4 life of the Dawesville Channel project there is no-one from 5 the AWU or Thiess or anywhere else who can point to any 6 work actually being carried out by or through the 7 association. 8 9 That leaves Mr Schalit, who took over from Mr Pulham 10 in about October 1993. Mr Schalit does say that training 11 took place on the site and that he assumed that this was 12 what the invoices related to. However, Mr Schalit has not 13 identified what this training was, who was doing it, 14 whether it was being conducted by the association, nor 15 whether there was any correlation between the training he 16 believes occurred and those invoices he approved. 17 18 The proposition that the association was generating 19 invoices for work that was never done is corroborated by 20 the fact that the association appears to have been a mere 21 contrivance. There are no written records of any members. 22 For example, there is no register of members. There are no 23 records of any management committee meetings. The 24 association paid no tax. It had no accounts. It had no 25 assets. The association did not maintain any records at 26 all, save for the documents lodged at its incorporation. 27 28 When it comes to employing a representative, there are 29 no records of the basis on which a representative was 30 allegedly engaged by the association to carry out work for 31 it. There are no records of wages paid by the association 32 to a person who attended at the Dawesville Channel project 33 to provide workplace reform services. There are no records 34 of what that person is alleged to have done. There are no 35 taxation records. It will be submitted in due course that 36 the above evidence establishes a number of matters 37 including the following: the association was established 38 by Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt. Mr Wilson was the driving 39 force. The association was never more than a vehicle 40 pursuant to which moneys were obtained through the 41 provision of sham invoices. It did not engage in any 42 genuine work. 43 44 It will be further submitted that the evidence 45 establishes that Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt caused the 46 association to engage in the above conduct deliberately and 47 knowingly. Mr Blewitt has already conceded this in

.10/06/2014 (3) 188 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 evidence. As to Mr Wilson, among other things, he set up 2 the association. It was his idea. He knew about the 3 secret PO box to which Thiess cheques were sent. He was 4 the treasurer of the association. He signed the 5 application form to open its bank accounts. He was, until 6 about mid-July 1992, the secretary of the WA branch of the 7 AWU. He worked closely with Mr Blewitt on a day-by-day 8 basis. He knew the association was being paid by Thiess he 9 was happy to use the money for the purposes of buying the 10 Kerr Street property. In those circumstances, it is 11 inconceivable that Mr Wilson was not aware of the 12 activities in which the association was engaged. 13 14 Thus, it will be submitted that the evidence 15 establishes that Mr Wilson conspired and agreed with 16 Mr Blewitt to create the association for the purposes of 17 issuing false invoices to Thiess, thereby committing an 18 offence under section 558 of the Criminal Code WA. It will 19 be further submitted that Mr Wilson caused Mr Blewitt to 20 render invoices to Thiess, knowing at the time that they 21 were false in that they claim payment for work that had 22 never been done and that this was done by each man 23 deliberately to procure a benefit for himself, there by 24 committing an offence under 409 of the criminal code WA. 25 26 The evidence further establishes that money acquired 27 as set out above by the association were used for at least 28 the following purposes: first, to pay in part for the 29 purchase of the Kerr Street property. This point does not 30 seem controversial. Secondly, to pay for renovations at 31 the Abbotsford property. There is a factual controversy 32 about this. Could I then come to the members' welfare 33 reform account. 34 35 As already noted, the hearings commencing today will 36 also examine the activities of the members' welfare 37 account. On or about 24 November 1992, the AWU caused to 38 be established with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia the 39 members' welfare account, being cheque account number 40 300810009028 known as the Australian Workers' Union members 41 welfare association number 1 account. The members' welfare 42 account seems to have operated initially as a slush fund, 43 in the sense that it received small payroll deductions from 44 AWU officials and employees, typically in an amount of a 45 few hundred dollars per week. 46 47 On 5 May 1993, Mr Wilson and Mr Jim Collins became the

.10/06/2014 (3) 189 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 persons authorised to operate the members' welfare account, 2 taking over from Mr Robert Smith. On 16 September 1993, 3 the first cheque was written on the account, being a cash 4 cheque in the amount of $3,500. A further cash cheque in 5 the amount of $5,000 was written on 13 October 1993. 6 Thereafter, there were a series of cheques written on the 7 account. Some of these were for election purposes. For 8 example. Cheque number 21 written on 6 April 1995 in 9 favour of Mr Bob Kernohan in the amount of $6,500, seems to 10 have related to election purposes. 11 12 From 23 December 1994, Mr Wilson caused a series of 13 significant cheques to be deposited into the members' 14 welfare account. Those are set out in the evidence but 15 include cheques totalling in excess of $50,000 each from 16 both Thiess and Woodside. 17 18 It will be submitted that in effecting these payments, 19 Mr Wilson was deliberately diverting union money into an 20 unaudited account contrary to the rules of the AWU and 21 without the knowledge or consent of the finance committee 22 or national executive of the AWU. 23 24 Further, Mr Wilson was seeking, in doing this, to 25 deploy union funds for election and other purposes, 26 contrary to his duties and obligations as an officer of the 27 AWU. 28 29 Could I then come to the discovery of the funds. The 30 existence of the association and the members' welfare 31 account, together with a number of other funds or accounts 32 associated with them, was uncovered by union officials in 33 and from about mid-1995. Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt resigned 34 as part of a deal struck with some AWU executives, being a 35 deal which included redundancy payments to them made out of 36 the union's funds; indeed, out of union moneys that had 37 been earmarked for bereavement payments to relatives of 38 deceased members. 39 40 Further, the moneys Woodside and other employers had 41 paid to the AWU and which had been misappropriated into the 42 members' welfare account were not transferred to the 43 union's account but instead returned to those employers. 44 When Mr Cambridge discovered what was occurring, he tried 45 to stop it but the money had already been disbursed. In 46 subsequent court proceedings promoted by Mr Cambridge, 47 orders were made that the decision to make redundancy

.10/06/2014 (3) 190 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 payments to Wilson and others and the decision to pay the 2 money back to employers were invalid. 3 4 Not only was there an attempt by some union officials 5 to sweep the affair away with a payout to the offenders but 6 there was also a push against involving the Victorian 7 police. Those who advocated for the police involvement 8 were marginalised and victimised. Mr Kernohan was one 9 union official who suffered this fate. The extent to which 10 union officials withhold information from the police in 11 relation to investigations into potential criminal 12 behaviour is likely to be a recurring theme during the life 13 this Commission, as is the mistreatment of whistleblowers. 14 15 In conducting these hearings, the Commission has 16 endeavoured to ensure the persons who may be affected by 17 the matters raised in evidence were treated fairly and 18 reasonably and have had every opportunity to respond. 19 Among other things, the Commission has provided in advance 20 of the hearings witness statements by each of the 21 15 witnesses set out above to persons who may be affected 22 by the evidence in those statements, including Mr Wilson. 23 On 4 June 2014 Mr Wilson provided an initial statement of 24 evidence in reply, the body of which comprised 91 pages, 25 supplemented by a large number of exhibits. 26 27 In this initial statement of evidence, Mr Wilson 28 suggested that he had not had time to address fully all 29 matters which he wished to put forward. The solicitors 30 assisting the Commission then wrote to Mr Wilson's 31 solicitors, inviting him to put on a further or 32 supplementary statement addressing any additional matters 33 of concern to him. Mr Wilson took up this invitation and 34 served an additional statement also supplemented by 35 exhibits. There is no suggestion in the supplementary 36 statement that Mr Wilson has now not had time fully and 37 fairly to put forward the totality of his case. 38 39 At least one other person has also provided a 40 statement of evidence in response to the evidence served by 41 the Commission. A number of persons affected by the 42 Commission's evidence have also made requests for further 43 information and documents. The Commission has endeavoured 44 to comply with all such requests to the extent it 45 reasonably can. 46 47 That is what I wish to say in opening, Commissioner.

.10/06/2014 (3) 191 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 The first witness will be Mr Cambridge. However it may be 2 appropriate to deal with any applications for leave. I 3 understand there's at least one application. 4 5 THE COMMISSIONER: I think Dr Hanscombe's client already 6 has authority to appear and Dr Hanscombe is appearing for 7 Mr Wilson. 8 9 DR HANSCOMBE: Yes, I continue to appear for Mr Wilson, if 10 the Commission please. 11 12 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Galbally? 13 14 MR LEWIS: Commissioner, my name is Anthony Lewis, 15 instructed by Mr Galbally. I seek leave to appear as 16 junior counsel for Ms Julia Gillard and if leave is granted 17 could I indicate to the Commission Mr Neil Clelland of 18 Queen's Counsel will be leading me before the Commission. 19 20 THE COMMISSIONER: Leave it granted. If you want to come 21 to the front Bar table there's room for you, by all means 22 do so. 23 24 MR LEWIS: I'm content here, if it's content for the 25 Commission. Thank you. 26 27 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Cambridge? 28 29 MR MEWING: Andrew Mewing is my name. I seek leave to 30 appear for Nick Jukes, the second witness. 31 32 THE COMMISSIONER: Could you give us your full name. 33 34 MR MEWING: Yes, I am sorry. Andrew Mewing, M-E-W-I-N-G. 35 36 THE COMMISSIONER: Any problem, Mr Stoljar? 37 38 MR STOLJAR: There is no objection. 39 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, have you that leave. Now we have 41 Mr Cambridge. 42 43 MR STOLJAR: Yes, Commissioner. 44 45 46 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 192 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2

.10/06/2014 (3) 193 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 it sufficient to refer to them by his name and their dates? 2 3 MR STOLJAR: The latter would be sufficient, Commissioner. 4 However, I can indicate, Commissioner, that the lengthy 5 statement makes reference to a number of documents set out 6 in numbered tabs; there are three such volumes. It may be 7 appropriate for those three volumes to be marked for 8 identification. 9 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I agree. Does anyone have any 11 objection to any part of Mr Wilson's evidence? Very well. 12 Those two statements will be received in evidence and the 13 three volumes which comprise the exhibits to the statement 14 of 27 May will be respectively: Cambridge MFI1, Cambridge 15 MFI2 and Cambridge MFI 3. 16 17 CAMBRIDGE MFI #1 VOLUME 1 OF 3 COMPRISING EXHIBITS TO 18 MR WILSON'S STATEMENT 19 20 CAMBRIDGE MFI #2 VOLUME 2 OF 3 COMPRISING EXHIBITS TO 21 MR WILSON'S STATEMENT 22 23 CAMBRIDGE MFI #3 VOLUME 3 OF 3 COMPRISING EXHIBITS TO 24 MR WILSON'S STATEMENT 25 26 MR STOLJAR: Q. Mr Cambridge, I may have provided you 27 with the originals of your two statements. It would be 28 preferable if you surrendered the originals to the custody 29 of the court and I'll give you photocopies of those two 30 statements. Mr Cambridge, you've obviously set out your 31 evidence in detail in your two statements, more 32 particularly your first statement of 27 May 2014. I just 33 wanted to ask you some questions about some of the matters 34 in your statements just to supplement what you've already 35 set out in writing. You touch on the relationship between 36 Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt in some parts of your statement, 37 for example, in the paragraphs leading up to paragraph 25, 38 but could you just tell from your observation of those two 39 gentlemen, what did you observe about their relationship? 40 A. They were very close. From watching them at different 41 times, it was fairly clear that Mr Wilson was effectively 42 the prime mover of the duo. Mr Blewitt seemed to take 43 orders or instruction from Mr Wilson from time to time. 44 They operated very closely together. 45 46 Q. You saw them at things like national executive 47 meetings and the like, is that when you would see them

.10/06/2014 (3) 194 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 together? 2 A. Yes. That would have been - these observations would 3 have occurred at national executive meetings, annual 4 conferences of the union, occasions such as that. 5 6 Q. You go on in your statement to talk about the National 7 Construction Branch. You're dealing with that in 8 paragraphs 26 and following. Can you tell us a bit more 9 about the National Construction Branch. Who set it up and 10 what was it intended to do? 11 A. I think it's fair to say that the concept was 12 advocated by Mr Wilson and it was a concept which was a 13 little unusual for the union. The union had historically 14 had geographical-based branches, by and large within the 15 various States of Australia, and that the National 16 Construction Branch was a different concept where it would 17 be a national branch covering the entire country but for 18 specifically those people engaged in the construction 19 industry. So rather than a geographical-based branch, it 20 was an occupational or industry-based branch. Historically 21 that had been something that was very unfamiliar for the 22 old AWU. When we amalgamated with FIME there were a few 23 examples there of industry or occupational-based branches 24 but by and large this was the most significant sort of 25 national industry or occupational branch that the union had 26 ever contemplated, I think. 27 28 Q. Did it necessitate any changes to the rules? 29 A. Significant changes to the rules because, of course, 30 what you had to do was take from the geographical branches 31 their members that were in the construction industry, so 32 you had to extract them and then they were to be in the 33 National Construction Branch as opposed to previously being 34 in the various geographical branches and there were a lot 35 of rules changes that - in fact, I think, Mr Wilson was 36 involved in having prepared to allow for all that to occur. 37 38 Q. Did it affect the structure at all? For example, what 39 happened to the old WA branch and Victorian branch? 40 A. One of the other things that happened in conjunction 41 with the establishment of the National Construction Branch 42 was that with the amalgamation with FIME we had duplicate 43 geographical branches in the States of Victoria and Western 44 Australia, so effectively we had two branches covering the 45 same territory in those states and with the construction - 46 National Construction Branch being created the duplicate 47 branches would disappear so one of those - effectively we

.10/06/2014 (3) 195 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 would just have one geographical branch in those states, 2 albeit without the National Construction Branch members who 3 would transfer to the National Construction Branch. So the 4 rules changes also had to deal with reconfiguring the 5 duplicate branches into one branch in the states of 6 Victoria and Western Australia. 7 8 Q. Mr Wilson had moved from WA by this stage? 9 A. Yes. 10 11 Q. You deal with some of those rule changes in paragraphs 12 32 and following of your statement. At 42 you say that the 13 proposed rules were certified by the industrial registrar 14 on 17 February 1995. There was a slightly separate process 15 going on at the same time in relation to funding and the 16 move from centralised funding to some other sort of 17 funding. Can you tell the Commissioner a bit more about, 18 firstly, the centralised funding concept and then what 19 happened to it? 20 A. Right. It's hard to put it in shorthand version, but 21 when the amalgamation occurred -- 22 23 Q. That's AWU and FIME? 24 A. Yes, November 1993 I think that was. Part of the 25 amalgamation process involved all the branches of the 26 amalgamated union going into a centralised fund, save and 27 except for three specified branches which stayed out of the 28 centralised arrangements and that was a new concept for the 29 AWU but not for FIME, they had this centralised funding 30 before; and essentially, it just meant that all the moneys 31 that were received by any of the branches of the union were 32 deposited into a single account held by the State Bank of 33 New South Wales at Martin Place and the bank had 34 established an arrangement where there was the one account 35 and each of the branches had separate subaccount 36 identifying numbers to show what they were depositing or 37 withdrawing as the thing operated. So that was the central 38 fund. 39 40 Q. That account was audited? 41 A. Oh yes, yes. There'd been ongoing financial 42 difficulties after the amalgamation and I think 43 independently of the National Construction Branch but at 44 around the same time, there was a lot of discussion about 45 whether centralised funding was the appropriate way for the 46 union to structure its financial arrangements and there'd 47 been a lot of people who had previously been very

.10/06/2014 (3) 196 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 supportive of it who were changing their mind and I think 2 that was largely because the union nationally was having 3 some financial difficulties which were primarily associated 4 with extensive loans that had been taken out and secured 5 against a property at Bathurst Street in the CBD of Sydney. 6 I think what happened at the time was that a number of 7 people who'd previously thought that centralised funding 8 was a good idea started to change their mind. And so there 9 was also then a decision taken that we would decentralise, 10 we'd go back to branch-based arrangements rather than the 11 central fund. 12 13 Q. Now, you give quite a deal of evidence, which I won't 14 take you through in detail, about the establishment of the 15 NCB and the payment of employees and the like, but I wanted 16 to take you directly through to the events of about 17 mid-1995 which you deal with at paragraph 101 and following 18 of your statement. Perhaps I'll just note going through 19 that by this stage Mr Wilson had been elected secretary of 20 the new National Construction Branch; is that right? 21 A. Yes, elected unopposed, yes. 22 23 Q. That happened back in March. You made reference to 24 that in paragraph 92 of your statement? 25 A. Yes, that would be right. 26 27 Q. A few months later, Mr Smith advises you of various 28 things and you deal with that in 101. In paragraph 101 29 you're referring to Mr Robert Smith. Which Robert Smith 30 are we talking about there? 31 A. Yes, it is a bit confusing. There are two Mr Smiths. 32 The first Mr Smith was the AWU Mr Smith. This was Robert F 33 Smith who came from the FIME side of the amalgamated union. 34 35 Q. The AWU Mr Robert Smith, if I can call him that, he 36 was Mr Robert Leslie Smith? 37 A. Yes, I think that's right. 38 39 Q. And the gentleman you're referring to here is 40 Mr Robert F Smith who came, as you say, from the FIME side? 41 A. Yes. 42 43 Q. Can you just tell us a bit about what happened. He 44 tells you that he had discovered some accounts, does he? 45 A. Yes. In between a variety of other matters I've gone 46 to - I've touched on some of them, but there was a lot of 47 difficulties in Victoria between Mr Smith and Mr Wilson and

.10/06/2014 (3) 197 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 as the National Construction Branch was starting out and 2 taking shape, there was almost a daily problem with 3 something to do with the way in which the National 4 Construction Branch was being established and the single 5 Victoria branch which remained was going to operate. This 6 sort of culminated in Mr Smith telling me at some stage 7 that he'd believed that Mr Wilson hadn't been putting the 8 membership contributions and moneys that had been provided 9 to the NCB into the central account, this is before the 10 decentralisation, and that he believed that there had been 11 bank accounts that had been operated upon which were old 12 AWU Victoria branch accounts which had effectively been 13 frozen when that branch was dissolved, so to speak, with 14 the creation of the single geographical branch in Victoria 15 and we had previously discussed the fact that we needed to 16 effectively freeze whatever had been happening with that 17 side of the organisation so that we could come in and do a 18 proper audit and then work out how we would deal with the 19 assets and liabilities of the old branch that had existed 20 there, whether they would transfer in total to Mr Smith, 21 who was the secretary of the remaining geographical branch, 22 or whether some other process would occur, but what had 23 happened by this stage, of course, is that Mr Smith had 24 believed that Mr Wilson had been operating these accounts 25 contrary to the understandings and directions and so forth. 26 It had been clear there was no committee of management or 27 anyone that had the authority to operate those bank 28 accounts after the Victoria branch had been dissolved and 29 so this led to the freezing of the bank accounts. 30 31 Q. Is the concern that Mr Smith expressed at this time 32 that despite the attempted freezing of the accounts, 33 someone had been operating them? 34 A. Well, they hadn't actually been frozen. We hadn't 35 given the bank any particular instruction, I suppose. It 36 had just been the case that I think I may have done it by 37 way of a communication to Smith and Wilson indicating that 38 there could be no further operation of any of those bank 39 accounts until such time as we'd done a full audit and then 40 we'd worked out how to deal with the assets and 41 liabilities. So it hadn't been the case that we had 42 actually said to the bank, "You can't operate those 43 accounts any longer", it was just an internal directive, 44 essentially, and then, of course, Mr Smith said - or not - 45 Mr Wilson hadn't been following that and that he'd been 46 operating these accounts and so that led to the process of 47 them being frozen. I think Mr Smith wrote to the

.10/06/2014 (3) 198 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Commonwealth Bank and said that these accounts couldn't be 2 operated upon, they needed to be frozen. I think it may 3 have been lawyers acting on his behalf that did that and so 4 the bank froze them. 5 6 Q. These accounts included the members' welfare account? 7 A. That's correct. 8 9 Q. Did they include the account of the Workplace Reform 10 Association? 11 A. I didn't know anything about that at this stage. 12 13 Q. So you hadn't discovered that at this point? 14 A. No. No. 15 16 Q. When Mr Wilson came and expressed concerns, these were 17 about accounts that were being operated quite independently 18 of -- 19 A. Not Mr Wilson, Mr -- 20 21 Q. I'm sorry, Mr Smith came and raised concerns; it 22 related to accounts quite independent of the association's 23 account? 24 A. Yes, I didn't know about the association until about 25 April of next year, I think. 26 27 Q. Can I just ask you this - in paragraphs 101 and 28 following, you describe in a bit of detail conversations 29 that had you with Mr Smith and, indeed, you do that 30 throughout your statement. How are you able to recollect 31 for the purposes of your statement so precisely what 32 occurred? 33 A. What's in here is largely - it was - it's also 34 contained in a statement that I made to Victoria Police and 35 that's based upon the contemporaneous notes that were taken 36 throughout this period. I had a practice which started 37 before the discovery of these things where if there were 38 certain events that I thought were noteworthy, I would get 39 my dictaphone and dictate an account of what had occurred 40 as soon as practicable after the actual event occurred and 41 then I would give the tape to my secretary, Wendy, and 42 she'd type it up into a document. So these weren't daily 43 entries - sometimes they were but not always - and Wendy 44 kept the document and she gave it the name "the whiz" and 45 that is the sort of notes that I - or diary notes, 46 contemporaneous notes that I'd kept during this period. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 199 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. So is it fair to say that your statement is based 2 largely on those contemporaneous notes contained in 3 "the whiz"? 4 A. Yes. I mean, I don't - in some respects you don't 5 have an independent recollection of these events today, 6 parts of it you do but largely it's all extracted from "the 7 whiz". 8 9 Q. You deal in paragraph 112 and 113 with a letter sent 10 by Maurice Blackburn, solicitors for the AWU. I won't 11 trouble you by taking you to the letter, but is that the 12 letter that you referred to about seeking that the accounts 13 be frozen? 14 A. I'd need to look at it. There was -- 15 16 Q. Little may turn on it, Mr Cambridge. It will be 17 apparent from the face of the letter in any event. 18 A. That's probably right, although I thought it was - 19 14 July, yes, that would be about right, yes. 20 21 Q. Could I then take you to a meeting of the finance 22 committee which occurred on 2 August 1995 and you deal with 23 that at paragraph 123 and following of your statement. 24 A. Yes. 25 26 Q. This was a meeting at which Mr Smith made specific 27 allegations to Mr Wilson about, as he put it, the misuse of 28 funds. Again, we're not now talking about the 29 association's funds, we're talking about the members' 30 welfare account and other accounts. 31 A. Yes, that's right. That's I think the first time I'd 32 ever heard of the members' welfare account in Victoria. 33 34 Q. Can you just tell us a little bit about how that 35 meeting proceeded and what happened? 36 A. Mr Smith read from correspondence that he had before 37 him at the meeting which essentially said - he said to the 38 meeting that he'd received advice from his lawyers that 39 Mr Wilson had been operating these accounts and that he was 40 essentially guilty of misappropriating union money and that 41 he would - he believed that the matters were serious enough 42 to charge Mr Wilson with breach of union rules and also 43 report the matter to the police. And there was quite a 44 degree of anxiety and a lot of yelling and shouting, 45 basically, that went on at the meeting after that sort of 46 announcement. And then in order to try and get things 47 straightened out, I got a whiteboard and tried to work out,

.10/06/2014 (3) 200 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 by using a whiteboard, just exactly what had been going on 2 with the various bank accounts that had been operating in 3 Victoria. 4 5 Q. Now, you describe that I think at 127? 6 A. Yes. 7 8 Q. I will take you to one document. Could the witness be 9 provided with MFI1, that is the first volume. I take you 10 to tab 25. It's page 139. This is a diagram that you 11 prepared. It is not the actual notes on the whiteboard but 12 what happened was you took a photo, did you, of the 13 whiteboard and then you prepared this diagram which 14 reflected the photograph? 15 A. Yes. This was done for I think the purposes of one of 16 the proceedings in the industrial court regarding 17 invalidities. 18 19 Q. In any event, it represents, in diagrammatic fashion, 20 what was on the whiteboard at this meeting? 21 A. Yes. 22 23 Q. Could you just explain the first line "17 February 24 1995", that's the certification of the rule amendments? 25 A. Yes. That's the date at which the National 26 Construction Branch rules changes were certified. 27 28 Q. And then the date of 30 June 1995, which is the second 29 vertical line? 30 A. The relevance of that is that's the end of the 31 financial year and then after that we've gone to 32 decentralised funding, so we had to work out what was 33 happening in this sort of period between February and June 34 when we were still in the central fund and then of course 35 we needed to work out what we were doing after that in 36 terms of the arrangements for the National Construction 37 Branch and the Victoria branch. 38 39 Q. Yes. In the left-hand column there are about five 40 accounts. Are those the accounts that were being discussed 41 at this meeting? 42 A. Yes. What I actually did is I sort of said to 43 Mr Wilson, "You tell me what accounts we're talking about 44 here and we'll write them up and we'll go through what 45 should have happened to them and how we can deal with 46 them." So the first one you can see in the box there was 47 what you would describe - was the Victoria branch general

.10/06/2014 (3) 201 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 account and as you can, alongside that I would have - I 2 wrote "frozen" because although we hadn't told the bank it 3 was frozen, it was supposed to have been frozen. It was 4 not supposed to be operated upon because there was no 5 longer a branch and the authorities that had previously 6 been provided in respect of operating that bank account, 7 those people didn't exist as officers of the branch anymore 8 at all. 9 10 Q. The next account was the members' welfare account? 11 A. That was something, as I said, I'd never heard of 12 before. That was the second account that was identified 13 and that was the one that Mr Smith had been most vocal 14 about at the meeting. 15 16 Q. Tell me if this is right or not but the problem to 17 Mr Smith's apprehension was that union moneys had been 18 deposited into what looked like a fund for election 19 purposes? 20 A. Essentially, yes. 21 22 Q. Did you put the question mark above the box? 23 A. Yes. Well, I did. 24 25 Q. What did that signify? 26 A. Well, I wasn't sure what we could do with this. 27 I needed to find out what was in it and there seemed to be 28 some substantial amount of money in it. I didn't know 29 where it came from or what it was all about. I'd never 30 heard of it before. That's probably why the question mark 31 is there. 32 33 Q. Is the sum of money that was in that account, that 34 figure that you've got on either side of the second 35 vertical line, 106,000, 256,000? 36 A. I didn't have those figures. They were told to me 37 I think by Mr Smith during the meeting. He mentioned 38 during the meeting, "Oh, that's got about 106 in it" and at 39 one stage he said to Bruce, "You tried to" - I think he 40 tried to take some out or put some more in, or something, 41 and it didn't work and then Mr Wilson had said something 42 back about, "If I knew you were tampering with that 43 I wouldn't have done that", or something. So there was 44 this sort of slight bit of - it wasn't good natured, but 45 there was a little bit of a break in the hostility while 46 everyone had a bit of a chuckle about the way the two were 47 talking about this.

.10/06/2014 (3) 202 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. But otherwise the meeting was at a pretty -- 3 A. Very serious and it got more and more serious as it 4 sort of unfolded. There was nothing funny about it at all, 5 but there was a degree of mirth attached to the way the two 6 exchanged their insults at one point, I guess is the best 7 way to describe it. 8 9 Q. Is the comment at 151 an example of when meeting was 10 getting more serious - paragraph 151 of your statement? 11 A. Yes. 12 13 Q. So this is now mid-1995 and there are then various 14 discussions between yourself, Mr Smith, Mr Wilson and so 15 on, about what's been uncovered, but that led to a 16 proposal, in effect, to pay Wilson and the others out and 17 you deal with that at 171 and following of your statement? 18 A. It's not my proposal. 19 20 Q. No, but can you just tell us a little bit more about 21 that proposal, whose idea was it and what happened? 22 A. I don't know who the - just who had the initial idea 23 for that. I think I've assumed that it was Mr Wilson, but 24 at one stage Mr Harrison, who was the other joint national 25 secretary, spoke to me about the prospect that Wilson and a 26 few others would resign and they'd be given redundancy 27 payments and I was strongly opposed to that idea. 28 29 Q. Why were you opposed to the idea? 30 A. Well, the first thing was that the National 31 Construction Branch existed. It had just been established. 32 It had cost an awful lot of money to establish it and the 33 idea of saying people were redundant in it was just to me a 34 nonsense. All of the time and energy and money spent on 35 establishing this thing was apparently going to be just 36 tossed away and that these people would be been redundant; 37 that was the sort of idea that was being put forward. That 38 just to me was stupid. And it would have just meant that 39 there would have been a massive waste of members' money, 40 setting up this new concept and then seeing within a matter 41 of months it being dissolved or something. And, as I say, 42 there wasn't a redundancy because there weren't any 43 position - the branch still existed, it still had to have 44 office holders, so there wasn't any redundancy at that 45 point. And the other very important factor was that it 46 didn't give us any capacity to straighten out the financial 47 problems that we'd identified back at the finance committee

.10/06/2014 (3) 203 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 meeting. We still had to work out what had happened with 2 these accounts that Mr Wilson had been involved with and if 3 Mr Wilson left the union, it was going to be much harder to 4 get any answers out of him. So it was something that I was 5 strongly opposed to. 6 7 Q. You communicated that opposition to others at the 8 union? 9 A. Yes. I sent out circulars to the members of the 10 national executive and others expressing as strongly as 11 I could my opposition to the very concept and from my 12 perspective, people that voted for it, I think I said this 13 in the circular, would be in breach of their fiduciary duty 14 as members of the national executive if they took the step 15 to give these people redundancy in the circumstances. To 16 me it was just outrageous. 17 18 THE COMMISSIONER: Q. Was there some legislation 19 pursuant to which the actual amounts were calculated? 20 A. For the redundancy pay? 21 22 Q. Yes. Because each person got a different figure? 23 A. Yes. It would have been based on their periods of 24 service, I suppose, given length of service or something, 25 I think. 26 27 Q. And related to their wages or salary? 28 A. Yes, it would have been based on that, I think. 29 I mean, I didn't do the calculations. They were done by 30 Laurie Hutchison, one of the finance people. 31 32 MR STOLJAR: Q. The amounts to which the Commissioner 33 was making reference are set out in paragraph 222 of your 34 statement. 35 A. That's just the net amount. Of course, it cost the 36 unions more than that when you add it all up. 37 38 Q. You mean the net amounts, since those are the actual 39 cheques written? 40 A. Yes, but there's a gross figure above that, don't 41 forget. 42 43 Q. Yes. 44 A. And then there are other things that would have - 45 I remember calculating the total amount at the time. It is 46 quite a significant amount of money. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 204 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. Yes. Is that figure the total amount figure in your 2 statement? We can look for that. In any event, can you 3 tell us a bit more about the circumstances in which these 4 amounts were paid? You were opposed to these cheques being 5 issued, for the reasons you've just outlined, and in 6 paragraphs 222, 223, 224 you describe the events of the day 7 in which the cheques were actually handed over. Can you 8 tell the Commissioner a bit more about those events? 9 A. After it became clear that I wasn't prepared to 10 endorse the process, the other joint national secretary, 11 Steve Harrison, set about activating a postal ballot, 12 firstly, of the finance committee to approve the payments 13 and I opposed that and indicated that the finance committee 14 didn't have the authority to actually make such a decision 15 and so we stopped at that point. Well, I - you know, it 16 appeared to be the case that they accepted that the 17 decision of the finance committee wasn't sufficient to 18 authorise these payments and so then there was a ballot of 19 the national executive to then authorise the payments and 20 once again, I sent out a circular to members of the 21 national executive strongly opposing it, once again 22 reminding them of their fiduciary duties and indicating to 23 them that I thought there would be significant problems if 24 they went ahead with that proposition. I think also at 25 that stage Bill Ludwig, who was the president, also sent 26 out a circular letter to the members of the national 27 executive endorsing what I was saying and adding his 28 opposition to the whole concept as well. 29 30 Q. But despite the opposition of yourself and Mr Ludwig, 31 the proposal went ahead? 32 A. Well, they claimed that they had the sufficient 33 numbers of votes, including those people that were voting 34 for a resolution to give themselves the money, which in 35 itself has some problems attached to it, but nevertheless, 36 they believed that the resolution had been carried, the 37 motion had become a resolution of the national executive 38 and had authorised the payment and then, as I now know, 39 they gave Mr Hutchison, I think it was, the cheques, wrote 40 them out here in Sydney and he jumped on a plane and flew 41 down to Melbourne so that they could get their payments 42 organised, I think the following day. 43 44 Q. Now, who is Mr Hutchison? 45 A. Mr Hutchison was a person that you'd referred to as 46 the sort of bookkeeper/finance officer of the union. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 205 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. He flew down to Melbourne, did he? 2 A. I'm fairly certain that's what happened, yes. 3 4 Q. What happened then? 5 A. Well, I don't know because I wasn't there, but I know, 6 because of what subsequently has been revealed and talking 7 primarily to the manager of the Commonwealth Bank -- 8 9 Q. That's Mr McCarthy to whom you made reference in 224, 10 for example? 11 A. Yes. That there was some sort of arrangement, the 12 bank was advised that the accounts which had previously 13 been frozen at the request of Mr Smith were going to be 14 unfrozen and that they were coming in and there'd be - the 15 bank would be given documents to demonstrate that the 16 accounts could now be operated in a certain fashion and 17 that all of the difficulties were apparently over and the 18 money that was in particular the members' welfare account 19 was to be dealt with in a particular fashion where bank 20 cheques were drawn in favour of a number of the employers 21 and then they did all of that and there was apparently a 22 meeting at the bank, although Mr McCarthy said to me it 23 wasn't really a meeting because he wasn't involved in it, 24 but they'd just given them a room and lawyers for the 25 previously warring parties were content that everything had 26 been resolved and the bank was given documents instructing 27 them to draw the bank cheques and so forth and once that 28 was all done, the individuals got their redundancy cheques. 29 They sort of closed things up and took the redundancy 30 cheques and got them cashed very quickly. 31 32 Q. Is that what you're referring to in 223, that the 33 cheques were endorsed and they were cashed that same 34 afternoon, these are the redundancy cheques? 35 A. Yes. I'd been separately trying to stop this by 36 getting an EFT block on the account and I actually did get 37 an EFT block on the account, but they got around that by 38 having the cheques taken down in this fashion to Melbourne 39 and I think they had special clearance authorised or 40 arranged back with Martin Place so that they could get 41 these cheques cashed straight away on presentation at the 42 bank in Melbourne. 43 44 THE COMMISSIONER: Q. I'd just like to understand 45 something. Mr Ludwig was opposed to the payment out of 46 these moneys? 47 A. Yes.

.10/06/2014 (3) 206 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. And you were opposed to the payment out of these, 3 moneys? 4 A. Yes. 5 6 Q. By what authority were these bank officers acting or 7 by what authority have they claimed to be acting? 8 A. The letters from - principally, the letter from 9 Maurice Blackburn who were acting for Smith. 10 11 Q. That's the Mr Smith who was the -- 12 A. Victoria branch secretary. 13 14 Q. As distinct from the gentleman who was very active on 15 the 2 August meeting? 16 A. No, no, it's the same person. 17 18 Q. The same person, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 21 Q. Yet, apparently after 2 August he formed the view that 22 it was permissible to, as it were, compromise the dispute 23 about the legality of the account and how it had been 24 operated? 25 A. On 2 August he was saying Mr Wilson was going to go in 26 the slammer. Within two weeks he was giving him redundancy 27 money and seeing him leave the union. 28 29 Q. And this was the result of some vote of the 30 federal executive? 31 A. The federal executive was needed to provide authority 32 for those cheques, yes. 33 34 Q. And was there a properly summoned meeting? 35 A. No, it was done by way of a postal vote. 36 37 Q. And that was outside the rules, in your understanding? 38 A. No, no - well, can you conduct a postal vote of the 39 national executive. It happens frequently if it's two 40 costly and inconvenient to convene a meeting. The rules 41 permit voting of the national executive by way of a postal 42 vote as it's described. It's done by way of a fax. In 43 those days we used fax machines. A couple of the 44 difficulties with the vote were that some of the people 45 that were voting had pecuniary interest in the outcome, a 46 direct benefit in the outcome, and there was also 47 difficulties with the actual voting strengths of the

.10/06/2014 (3) 207 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 various people on the national executive and that was a 2 difficulty that continued for some time. Effectively, you 3 had a vote based on the number of members from the branch 4 that you represented, so there were different voting 5 strengths and it was very difficult, because the number of 6 members was determined by a formula where you took the 7 membership subscription figure and divided it by the annual 8 fee, so there were problems with the audited accounts and 9 the subscription figures in them to the extent that I don't 10 know that it was completely clear at that time, if you got 11 a close vote, how you could actually with any precision 12 work out what the figures were. 13 14 Q. Your position then is you opposed the redundancy 15 payments, as it were, on their merits, but you also 16 contend, do you, that the actual approval by the Federal 17 executive was formally defective? 18 A. I think they had enough votes at the end of the day 19 even if we took out the votes for Wilson and others that 20 had a direct beneficial outcome or had a pecuniary benefit 21 from it. I think at the end of the day I would have to 22 have conceded that the vote got up. 23 24 Q. No-one knew one way or the other at the time the bank 25 officers were making the payments? 26 A. Well, it certainly was contentious at the time, 27 there's no doubt about that, but there were a lot of people 28 voted for it and didn't heed my warning. 29 30 Q. What is the relationship between these events, namely 31 the national executive committee authority to Maurice 32 Blackburn and the consequential payments and, secondly, the 33 opposition of Mr Ludwig and yourself and, thirdly, some 34 litigation going upon at the same time, was it litigation 35 that challenged the actual payments? 36 A. Yes. There was an attempt activated by Bill Ludwig. 37 As I say, I thought I had it stopped with the EFT block, so 38 I thought they can do whatever they like they're not going 39 to get their money and then we'll have to bring them back 40 in and sit down and sort this out properly. But the EFT 41 block didn't work because they'd taken the cheques down 42 overnight. When we suddenly realised that they were doing 43 that, Bill Ludwig attempted to get an injunction, in fact, 44 we did get it but it was too late, went to the court in 45 Brisbane, and unfortunately, we got the injunction but, as 46 I said, by that stage they'd got the money and gone. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 208 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. But the bank officers knew that this litigation was 2 pending in Brisbane at the time they made the payments? 3 A. Certainly the bank officers in Sydney, where the 4 arrangements were made, the State Bank of New South Wales, 5 I had a long, difficult discussion with the person from the 6 State Bank and Mr Corbett, I think his name was, and he 7 had - he indicated to me that as far as he was concerned, 8 the bank had Mr Harrison's signature on all of the loan 9 documents and other bank records and so he was going to - 10 he was satisfied that if Mr Harrison was saying this was 11 the appropriate thing to do, that was good enough for him. 12 13 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. 14 15 MR STOLJAR: Q. Just picking up a couple of the points 16 arising from your discussion with the Commissioner, you've 17 described some communications with Mr Corbett at State Bank 18 in 217 and following of your statement, that those were the 19 discussions that you were just making reference to in your 20 answer to the Commissioner? 21 A. That's correct. 22 23 Q. You also indicated to the Commissioner that there was 24 some correspondence emanating from Mr Smith and others to 25 the Commonwealth Bank about the freezing or unfreezing of 26 the accounts. Can I take you to MFI1, tab 33 at page 163 27 in the bottom right-hand corner. This is a handwritten 28 letter reading: 29 30 Further to the recent correspondence from 31 our solicitors ... wherein various Accounts 32 were frozen [it must we] advise that the 33 matters in dispute have now been resolved 34 and the freeze on all Accounts can be 35 lifted. 36 37 It goes on: 38 39 The AWU has no interest in any other 40 accounts. 41 42 And that's signed "Mr Smith". Is that signature to the 43 right of Mr Smith, is that Mr Blewitt or are you not sure? 44 A. I don't know whose that signature is. 45 46 Q. Then beneath Mr Smith is Mr Wilson? 47 A. Yes.

.10/06/2014 (3) 209 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. And to the left is Mr Collins? 3 A. Yes. 4 5 Q. So that was the communication to the bank from persons 6 in Melbourne, if I can put it that way, I realise some of 7 those are officers within National Construction Branch now, 8 but indicating that there had been a resolution and that 9 the accounts can now be unfrozen? 10 A. Yes. And there was a further letter, which was a more 11 official letter on Maurice Blackburn letterhead, which 12 actually said, "In respect of this arrangement, please make 13 our bank cheques to the various companies and for the 14 following amounts". 15 16 Q. Is that letter, the letter to which you make reference 17 at Maurice Blackburn, tab 31, page 155 in the bottom 18 right-hand corner? 19 A. Yes, that's right. 20 21 Q. Both the handwritten letter and this letter are dated 22 17 August. Why were directions being given - to your 23 understanding, why are directions being given to draw these 24 cheques in the form of bank cheques to those employers? 25 A. Why were they doing this? 26 27 Q. Yes. 28 A. I don't know. 29 30 Q. Isn't this, as you understood it, union money? 31 A. Well, I didn't know what it was at the time. It 32 appeared to me that it was a mix of an old slush fund and 33 union money of some form or another, but exactly what it 34 was I hadn't had sufficient time to find out. But why you 35 would just suddenly start giving it back to employers 36 certainly is very peculiar. 37 38 Q. Did anyone offer you any explanation for that? 39 A. At one point during the finance committee meeting 40 there was this mention of donations and that was something 41 that got - introduced another degree of information to the 42 hot environment already. 43 44 Q. This is the meeting of 2 August? 45 A. Yes. So there was this mention - when I said, "What's 46 in this account, Bruce?", this members' welfare thing, "Oh, 47 you know, there was - it was an old slush fund", blah,

.10/06/2014 (3) 210 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 blah, blah, and then, "Who's been putting into it?", "Oh 2 well, companies have been." "Well, what's that money?" 3 And at what point there was this mention of donations and 4 I remember I think it was Graham Roberts from Port Kembla, 5 Wollongong he got quite upset at that concept. So it was a 6 mess, to put it simply. We didn't know exactly whether 7 this was money that the companies had been paying to the 8 union for some particular purpose, membership contributions 9 or what it was, but there was this concept of donations 10 that emerged at this point in time and so for whatever 11 reason, they thought that the way to deal with it was to 12 just give it back to the companies and I think they had 13 some left over. They tried to match up amounts going back 14 to companies in accordance with amounts that had been 15 deposited and they did that and then I think they had a bit 16 left over and they didn't quite know what to do with it, so 17 I think they just decided to give the residual to fees. 18 19 THE COMMISSIONER: Q. One legitimate method, though, 20 which companies might pay the Australian Workers' Union, as 21 you indicated, would be if deductions had been made from a 22 worker's pay as membership fees. Is there any other reason 23 why companies would pay money into an Australian Workers' 24 Union account? 25 A. Membership contributions, it may be that - from time 26 to time companies would do things like they would take out 27 advertisements in union journals and things like that. So 28 they might say, "Well, a half page advertisement in your 29 annual yearbook will cost you so much. Would you be 30 prepared to do that and we'll put John Holland", or whoever 31 it is, "in our yearbook." Sometimes they'd do that sort of 32 thing. 33 34 Q. Who reads the yearbook, members of the trade union? 35 A. I don't know -- 36 37 Q. Some members? 38 A. Some members, not all of them. 39 40 Q. What's point of John Holland advertising their 41 attractions to that sort of readership? 42 A. They would say that they were trying to demonstrate 43 that they had a good relationship with the unions, the 44 things - that the employer was one who was open to the 45 union and that there was a fairly harmonious arrangement 46 between them and the union. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 211 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. I know we're talking at perhaps a somewhat abstract 2 level, but what sort of money would be paid for a half page 3 advertisement for John Holland in the yearbook? 4 A. Oh, back then, I don't know, maybe $1,500, $2,000, 5 something like that. 6 7 Q. In your meeting of 2 August, or at any other 8 communication around this time, were you able to establish 9 why Thiess had paid $20,160 or why it was that Thiess had 10 paid in a sum of money which resulted in them being paid 11 $20,160 back or John Holland $25,200 back? 12 A. Well, I wrote to them all and asked them if they'd 13 received these cheques and if they could tell me what they 14 knew about the money and I got letters back from I think 15 all of them in most instances, saying that they'd believed 16 they'd paid the money to the AWU for some particular 17 legitimate purpose. In some - in one instance I think they 18 actually identified it was from membership contributions. 19 In other instances they talked about the provision of union 20 services in the form of a particular organiser and that was 21 something that I hadn't really heard a lot about before 22 then. 23 24 Q. Services of a particular union organiser to do what? 25 A. To be available on site at a particular site for a 26 particular period, or be on standby. I think on one 27 occasion they said to me that they'd paid this money 28 because they wanted to have access to an organiser to be on 29 standby over Easter, or something, in case there were 30 problems. 31 32 Q. So far as it was explained on the basis that they were 33 members' contributions, did anyone explain to you how it 34 was that money which was rightly the union's should be 35 given back to a person who had been under an obligation to 36 pay it in the first place? 37 A. No. Ultimately, I think all of the money came back, 38 that is, the employers - all - I think they all said, "We 39 were surprised when we got the money and it's your money", 40 it was a bit of a hot potato, I suppose, but they then sent 41 it back. We then took out proceedings in the Federal Court 42 to ensure that we got the court to declare that that money 43 was rightfully the property of the union. I wasn't going 44 to keep it unless I had an order from the court saying that 45 I was entitled to it, or the union was entitled to it. 46 47 Q. The actual redundancy money apparently came in part

.10/06/2014 (3) 212 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 from a fund to assist widows and so forth of deceased 2 members? 3 A. No, not quite like that, but what occurred was that at 4 the time that the redundancy payments were being spoken of, 5 the union was fairly short of cash and money had come in 6 from the sale of a property in Melbourne, I think it was 7 the old ASC & J Building, that was one of the unions that 8 the unions had amalgamated with and the building was sold 9 and that money, which was some - about $250,000-odd, came 10 in and that should have been used for, amongst other 11 things, payment of the bereavement grants fund and that 12 would have been payments to, as you say, widows, members 13 and because the money had been specifically earmarked for 14 the redundancies, those payments couldn't be made at the 15 time and that infuriated me. 16 17 MR STOLJAR: Q. Mr Cambridge, could I take you to MFI3. 18 In answer to some of the Commissioner's questions, you 19 described correspondence that you sent to Thiess and others 20 about the return of funds that were paid to them. Could 21 I take you to tab 86, page 640 in the bottom right-hand 22 corner. So this is a letter that you sent to Thiess on 23 15 September 1995 and you say in the second paragraph the 24 payment of the moneys that you've identified in the first 25 paragraph were not authorised by the union and as far as 26 the union is concerned, that money remains the property of 27 the union? 28 A. Yes. 29 30 Q. We have some correspondence from Thiess after that. 31 The first letter which begins on 641 is dealing with, among 32 other things, the Workplace Reform Association accounts, so 33 we'll leave that for the time being. If you come through 34 to page 643 in the bottom right-hand corner, Thiess refers 35 to cheque amounts of $13,934.42 and $20,160 and says that 36 so far as - "We remain uncertain as to why the money was 37 returned, but so far as Thiess is concerned the funds 38 belong to the AWU." That was what Thiess had to say? 39 A. Yes. 40 41 Q. Can I then take you further in the bundle to page 662. 42 You're now writing to the firm called Chamber Consulting 43 Services, who'd received a cheque for $6,400. The letter 44 is in similar terms to the one that you sent to Thiess on 45 the same day? 46 A. Yes. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 213 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. And on the next page, 663, Mr Tyler from Hunter 2 Industrial Management Services writes back and says that 3 those payments related to the services of that someone had 4 negotiated by Mr Wilson for two days a week. This in the 5 second paragraph: 6 7 ... in return I agreed to make payment of 8 $400.00 per day ... 9 10 So that was - the union had provided someone to work at the 11 site? 12 A. Mmm. 13 14 Q. So that looks like union moneys? 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. And then some more correspondence with that gentleman 18 and then we come to page 670. You wrote to John Holland on 19 the same day in similar terms? 20 A. Yes. 21 22 Q. Their letter comes back on 21 September 1995. It's 23 page 671. John Holland says, in effect - this appears from 24 the second paragraph - that the initial remittance related 25 to the payment of membership fees? 26 A. Yes. 27 28 Q. So this was an example of what the Commissioner was 29 asking you about, namely, it would appear the employer had 30 collected membership fees paid by members and sent those 31 funds across to the union? 32 A. Yes. Well, that, of course, happened frequently in 33 those days. 34 35 Q. Yes. 36 A. Yes. 37 38 Q. But the problem, I suppose, is twofold: one, that it 39 didn't end up in an audited account? 40 A. Yes. 41 42 Q. And secondly, for reasons which are unclear, somebody 43 decided to send it back to John Holland? 44 A. Yes. 45 46 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Stoljar, is now a convenient time? 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 214 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 MR STOLJAR: Yes. 2 3 THE COMMISSIONER: We will adjourn until 10 to 12. 4 5 SHORT ADJOURNMENT 6 7 MR STOLJAR: Q. Mr Cambridge, could I take you to page 8 679 in MFI3. This is a letter to Phillips Fox. You 9 recollect before the break I was just taking through some 10 of the correspondence that you sent to the employers who'd 11 received refunds of sums paid into their accounts. Now, 12 Phillips Fox acted for Woodside? 13 A. Yes. 14 15 Q. A letter came back from Woodside at 680 and it says: 16 17 ... the sum of $39,000 representing two 18 quarterly payments. 19 20 That's in the sixth line of the first paragraph. 21 A. Yes. 22 23 Q. Was that, to your understanding, the repayment of - 24 that Woodside had paid some moneys for some organisers to 25 be on particular sites? 26 A. Yes, well, it says, as you no doubt know, but that's 27 an assumption that was incorrect. I had no personal 28 knowledge of this. 29 30 Q. Yes. 31 A. But apparently there had been some formal arrangements 32 established and these payments were being made in 33 accordance with those formal arrangements. 34 35 Q. Who entered into the arrangements, do you know? 36 A. I'm not certain. I think Mr Wilson, obviously, on 37 behalf of the union. Whether this had been set up for some 38 time or not I don't know, but -- 39 40 Q. Is an arrangement of that kind something with which 41 you're familiar? 42 A. No. 43 44 Q. Had you come across it before? 45 A. Well, I came from the South Australian branch of the 46 union. I'd never heard of that sort of thing happening at 47 all ever in the South Australian branch.

.10/06/2014 (3) 215 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. Could I then come back to your statement. I'll just 3 ask you about one matter. You describe in 315 - just to 4 put this into context, part C of your statement, which 5 begins on page 52, is headed "Analysis of bank accounts". 6 So this was an analysis that you prepared during the course 7 or subsequent to the investigations that you carried out. 8 In 315 you say: 9 10 ... all moneys paid to the AWU or a Branch 11 thereof were required to be paid into bank 12 accounts in the name of the AWU and 13 operated by each Branch or National Office 14 on behalf of the AWU. 15 16 And then you identify various rules pursuant to which that 17 was required? 18 A. Yes. 19 20 Q. You then developed that for the period after 1 July 21 1994 in 316 and 317. Then after you've done that, you then 22 come to the Workplace Reform Association, that's at 23 paragraph 320. So far we've been talking about other 24 accounts including the members' welfare account, but in due 25 course, some time in about April or thereabouts 1996, you 26 became aware of an account relating to the Workplace Reform 27 Association. How did you become aware of that? 28 A. Shortly after the members' welfare matter had 29 occurred, with the departure of Mr Wilson and others and 30 the payment back to the companies, I decided to write to 31 every bank and financial institution in the country asking 32 them if they'd provide me with details of any accounts that 33 they held that included the name the Australian Workers' 34 Union and ultimately, after some difficulties, the 35 Commonwealth Bank cooperated with that and they started 36 doing a national search of all bank accounts that had the 37 name Australian Workers' Union in them and then it was some 38 time, I think around April of 1996, I telephoned - sorry, 39 I lost my train of thought on that. 40 41 Q. They responded to you in April 1996? 42 A. I had a call from one of the people at the 43 Commonwealth Bank who had been undertaking the work and 44 they asked me had I heard of the Australian Workers' Union 45 Workplace Reform Association. Said, "Never heard of it. 46 What is it?" And there was a bank account operated by that 47 body, "a couple of accounts, a fair bit of money's gone

.10/06/2014 (3) 216 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 through it. Are you sure you don't know anything about 2 it?", I said, "No, never heard of it." And then, of 3 course, they provided me with some of the bank records for 4 the Workplace Reform Association. 5 6 Q. In paragraph 320 and following you've set out your 7 analysis of those records and these are really summaries 8 that you've prepared of the documents which the bank 9 provided to you. Let's just pause at 320 for a minute. 10 You identify two separate accounts as account A and account 11 B. Is the position that the majority of the funds, if not 12 all of the funds in the cash management account, account A, 13 were transferred across to account B? 14 A. Yes. One I think was an interest bearing account and 15 the other an operating account, so just as money would be 16 moved to maximise interest, I suppose, or whatever. 17 18 Q. Yes. So the figure of $383,332.60 in account B, that 19 includes funds that had come across from account A? 20 A. I think it - most of it had gone - from memory, I'd 21 have to check, but I think most of it went in through the 22 cheque account and then some of it went across to the cash 23 management account. 24 25 Q. That figure of $383,000-odd in account B, that's the 26 totality of the funds which were ultimately deposited into 27 that account B that you became aware of in April 1996? 28 A. Yes, that's correct. 29 30 Q. Perhaps if you come through to 325, you then set out a 31 list of or entries which describe how funds were disbursed 32 from that account? 33 A. Yes. 34 35 Q. That culminates on page 58 with an amount $388,564? 36 A. It doesn't quite balance properly. I'm not sure why 37 that is but -- 38 39 Q. Yes. I note on page 58 there's an entry or - I'll 40 come back to this - $46,550 which came out of that account 41 and went to something called the Construction Industry 42 Fund. Now, I'll come back to that. In any event, that 43 information in 325 just lists how cheques were drawn on 44 this association account and who the recipient was? 45 A. Yes. Well, most of it came out as cash, of course. 46 47 Q. Yes. Was that something that you were familiar with

.10/06/2014 (3) 217 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 in your time at the union, cash withdrawals from accounts? 2 A. No. Highly irregular. 3 4 Q. Highly irregular? 5 A. Yes. 6 7 Q. There were other accounts which you discovered in this 8 process. If I take you to 342, you say: 9 10 During my investigation I identified 11 another Western Australian bank account ... 12 13 Was that also through the CBA giving you information about 14 accounts associated with the AWU? 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. Had you been familiar with this account before, the 18 Construction Industry Fund? 19 A. No, I'd never heard of it before. 20 21 Q. That had deposited in it an amount of $66,710. If you 22 come over to page 62 of 74, you identify at the bottom of 23 that page an amount of $46,550. Now, that seems to be a 24 cheque drawn on the account of the association, account B, 25 which was then deposited in the Construction Industry Fund? 26 A. Yes, that looks like what happened, yes. 27 28 Q. After that date, 12 April, on 29 December 1995 an 29 amount of $20,160 was deposited. Now, was that a cheque 30 drawn in favour of the AWU by Thiess? 31 A. Yes. 32 33 Q. Were Mr Wilson or Mr Blewitt still employees of the 34 AWU at that time, 29 December 1995? 35 A. No, they had left on 17 or 18 August. 36 37 Q. Did your investigations reveal how that cheque from 38 Thiess came to be deposited in that account? 39 A. Not that I can remember. I mean, it just was another 40 matter that required further investigation, I think. 41 42 Q. What happened to the funds in that account? When you 43 came to be aware of it, were there any funds left in it or 44 had they been disbursed? At 347 you seem to deal with 45 amounts coming out of it. 46 A. I don't think there was anything left in it, but look, 47 I'd have to go back and have a check.

.10/06/2014 (3) 218 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. You've got the accounts statements, so we can have a 3 look at it if we need to. 4 A. Yes. 5 6 Q. Can I them come to yet another account. At 351, this 7 was something called the WA Election Fund? 8 A. Yes. 9 10 Q. Was that another account that came to light in these 11 investigations? 12 A. It did but I think it didn't - it wasn't thrown up by 13 the AWU search at the Commonwealth Bank, because it didn't 14 have the AWU name in it. 15 16 Q. Yes. 17 A. I think this came up simply because the bank then 18 conducted some further searching in respect of associated 19 accounts. 20 21 Q. I see. In any event, you identified it in about April 22 1996, along with the others? 23 A. Yes. 24 25 Q. It seems that an amount of $40,000 was deposited in 26 that account which also came from account B, that is to say 27 the association account? 28 A. The association account, yes. 29 30 Q. And then another account came to light - this is the 31 one you deal with on page 65, the AWU-FIME Staff Social 32 Club account. That wasn't operated by either Mr Wilson or 33 Mr Blewitt, it was operated by some other gentleman? 34 A. Yes. 35 36 Q. But Mr Blewitt had deposited funds into that account? 37 A. At one point, yes. Well, it appeared that I think 38 something had gone into it from account D, hadn't it? 39 40 Q. From the election fund? 41 A. Yes. 42 43 Q. In fact, it is cheque number 1 drawn on the election 44 fund, as appears in paragraph 354? 45 A. Yes. 46 47 Q. We then come to the members' welfare account that

.10/06/2014 (3) 219 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 we've been discussing already today; that's at 360. In 2 paragraphs 360 and following you really give the evidence 3 that you've now given this morning in discussion with the 4 Commissioner and otherwise about what you discovered there, 5 that funds had been paid in and funds had come out. In 6 paragraph 371 and following, you gave your explanation as 7 to whom some cheques at least were made out to that 8 account? 9 A. Yes. 10 11 Q. But the cash payments just remain unclear? 12 A. Yes. Well, you can't trace the cash, of course. 13 14 Q. Yes. Mr Cambridge, that's all I wish to raise with 15 you orally now, but it's fair to say, isn't it, that you've 16 made quite a detailed attempt to set out your evidence in 17 your statement and to understand the context and background 18 one would really need to read the statement in its 19 totality; is that fair? 20 A. There is a fair bit of detail to this. 21 22 Q. Yes. 23 A. It's not something you can grasp in five minutes, 24 I don't think. 25 26 Q. Yes. 27 28 MR STOLJAR: I have nothing further, thank you 29 Commissioner. 30 31 THE COMMISSIONER: Q. Just before Dr Hanscombe begins 32 I just want to ask you two questions. Shortly after this 33 2 August 1995 meeting, the angry meeting at which positions 34 were taken up, soon after that, you sought legal advice? 35 A. Yes. 36 37 Q. May we take it that your legal advisers had no first 38 hand knowledge of any of the relevant facts, they were 39 simply acting on the instructions you'd given to them? 40 A. The legal advisers weren't present at the meeting, 41 so -- 42 43 Q. My question is really this - if one were to ask the 44 legal advisers questions, their answer would simply be, 45 "Mr Cambridge informed of us of various things and we gave 46 him advice on the assumption that what he said was 47 correct"?

.10/06/2014 (3) 220 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 A. Yes. Oh, yes, there was a formal written advice given 2 by Richard Kenzie, yes. 3 4 Q. The only other thing is this, in your statement and 5 also in your oral evidence this morning, you've used the 6 expression "slush fund". Is that a term of art in the AWU? 7 A. I think it's a common - it's a term that's commonly 8 used which refers to funds that are used primarily for the 9 basis of electioneering. 10 11 Q. Does the expression also carry the meaning that the 12 slush fund is not part, for example, of the AWU funds 13 proper? 14 A. Well, it's very important that the slush funds are 15 kept separate from the AWU proper, very important. 16 17 Q. The importance stems from what? 18 A. Well, members' money as opposed to individual's money. 19 The AWU is just the repository of the members' money and if 20 you start using the members' money to advance your own 21 particular election or re-election, then I couldn't see 22 that that could be something that you could necessarily 23 proclaim to be the proper use of the members' money in the 24 interests of the members. It's in your own interests. 25 That's an entirely different thing. 26 27 Q. So that, strictly speaking, a slush fund by definition 28 is not part of the union funds? 29 A. Exactly. 30 31 THE COMMISSIONER: That's all I had. Yes, Dr Hanscombe. 32 33 DR HANSCOMBE: Commissioner, we had, in accordance with the 34 practice note, sent a list of topics to the Commission. 35 However, an event has occurred this morning that I seek to 36 traverse with you and it means that I need to ask this 37 witness a question on an unrelated topic and I'd like to 38 commence by explaining that to you. We've been in 39 receipt of a -- 40 41 THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps we can deal with it this was - 42 does Mr Stoljar know what the additional topic -- 43 44 DR HANSCOMBE: Yes, he does, yes. 45 46 THE COMMISSIONER: Does he oppose you dealing with that 47 topic?

.10/06/2014 (3) 221 I W CAMBRIDGE (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 DR HANSCOMBE: I don't know. 3 4 MR STOLJAR: No, Commissioner. 5 6 THE COMMISSIONER: Very well, you can proceed with your 7 topics you foreshadowed and just refer to those topics. 8 9 DR HANSCOMBE: If the Commission please. We're in receipt 10 of email traffic this morning in the last hour which 11 appears to show that Jon Faine, who you may know is a radio 12 interviewer, is in receipt of a copy of Mr Wilson's 13 statement or statements to this Commission. They were not 14 provided by Mr Wilson, nor by anybody on his legal team. 15 This is a matter of some concern to us. 16 17 It may be that witnesses who have been provided with a 18 copy of those documents for the purpose of them commenting 19 may have released them to the media and I seek to ask 20 Mr Cambridge whether he has done so. 21 22 THE COMMISSIONER: That is the topic? 23 24 DR HANSCOMBE: That is the additional topic. 25 26 THE COMMISSIONER: Very well. Yes. 27 28

.10/06/2014 (3) 222 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. Indeed they were friendly, weren't they, they were 2 mates? 3 A. Yes, you'd say they were mates, yes. 4 5 Q. "Mates" is a bit of a term of art in union circles, 6 isn't it? 7 A. Well, particularly in the AWU, I think. 8 9 Q. Particularly in the AWU. You'd describe that 10 relationship as friendly? 11 A. Between the two of them? 12 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. Yes. 15 16 Q. You certainly wouldn't say, would you, that Mr Blewitt 17 was in any way intimidated by Mr Wilson? 18 A. Not that you'd observe overtly, I suppose, no. 19 20 Q. You never saw any evidence of any intimidation? 21 A. I saw Bruce give some pretty direct instructions to 22 Ralph from time to time. 23 24 Q. That's probably right, but that's not what I asked 25 you, is it? 26 A. Well, he obeyed them without question. 27 28 Q. He didn't stand over Blewitt, did he? 29 A. Oh, no, I wouldn't say he stood over him that 30 I observed anyway, no. 31 32 Q. No, and they remained mates? 33 A. Probably, yes, I would think so. I think they were 34 good friends. 35 36 Q. Yes, good friends? 37 A. Mmm. 38 39 Q. That's your description? 40 A. Mmm. 41 42 Q. Okay. Can I come to this question that's been 43 traversed in various ways this morning about the provision 44 of an organiser at a particular site, for instance. Now, 45 whether or not you'd heard of that in South Australia, 46 you've been in industrial relations for decades now, 47 haven't you?

.10/06/2014 (3) 223 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. You were on the State Commission before the 4 Federal Commission? 5 A. That's correct. 6 7 Q. And you obviously were union official before that? 8 A. Yes. 9 10 Q. It is fair to say, isn't it, that especially on large 11 projects, employers actually quite often prefer to deal 12 with one or two people from the union than to have a 13 continual queue of people on the site, coming up 14 complaining and wanting attention. Do you agree with that? 15 A. Not entirely. 16 17 Q. You don't? 18 A. I think employers probably generally don't - if they 19 could avoid it they wouldn't deal with a union official at 20 all. 21 22 Q. That's probably - sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. 23 A. But if you're saying that if they have to deal with 24 someone who they prefer to deal with someone they know. 25 26 Q. Yes. 27 A. I think that's correct. 28 29 Q. They would rather deal with one person than 10? 30 A. Perhaps. It would depend upon the particular 31 circumstances of the site. 32 33 Q. Of course it would, yes. 34 A. Yes. 35 36 Q. Of course it would. So if an employer said, "Look, 37 I'd rather you designated a person to be my go-to person 38 and he can tell the workers he's the go-to person and 39 I only have to deal with him" that doesn't strike you as 40 any way untoward, does it? 41 A. No. I mean, there would be probably from the union's 42 perspective a suggestion that, "Well, if that's the person 43 you want, we'll give you someone else." 44 45 Q. All right. Lets suppose it isn't the person 46 designated by the employer but the person proffered by the 47 union. It still may well suit the employer to have one

.10/06/2014 (3) 224 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 person to deal with? 2 A. In certain circumstances that would be correct, yes. 3 4 Q. Yes, and if the employer said to you subsequently, 5 that it was to have a particular organiser on standby, 6 you've got no reason to think that it wasn't? 7 A. Wasn't what, sorry? 8 9 Q. I'll ask that question again, I asked it badly. If a 10 particular employer said to you, some time after a relevant 11 event about a payment, "That payment was to make sure that 12 I have Bill Smith" - I need another name, "John Smith" - I 13 don't think there was anyone in the union called John Smith 14 - "available if I needed him as my go-to man." You had no 15 reason to think that it wasn't? 16 A. It's an unusual request but I accept that it's quite a 17 legitimate request. 18 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. It's - potentially nothing wrong with that. 21 22 Q. That's right. 23 A. Yes. Yes. 24 25 Q. Just the fact that you hadn't seen such arrangement 26 yourself in South Australia, that's not the touchstone of 27 what's legitimate or not, obviously? 28 A. No, certainly not what I've seen, no. 29 30 Q. When the relevant employers returned money which had 31 been sent to them by the union and said, "No, we thought 32 that was for services legitimately provided to us", you had 33 no reason to doubt it? 34 A. I did. 35 36 Q. What? 37 A. I was concerned about its legitimacy. 38 39 Q. I know you were concerned, that's why you sent it 40 back. 41 A. It's one of the reasons why I insisted upon the court 42 making declarations that the union was entitled to have 43 that money. 44 45 Q. And? 46 A. And the court did. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 225 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. That accorded with what the employers had said, these 2 are legitimate payments? 3 A. Yes. 4 5 Q. So although you had been concerned, in fact, your 6 concerns proved to be without basis? 7 A. Which concerns? There are a lot of different 8 concerns. If you're saying my concern about whether the 9 union was entitled to retain the money. 10 11 Q. Yes. 12 A. That was resolved in the affirmative and the court 13 orders to that effect were the basis upon which I was 14 satisfied that we could keep the money. 15 16 Q. Okay; and that was the end of that? 17 A. Yes. 18 19 Q. Okay. Just as it may well be legitimate for a 20 particular employer to want to deal with a particular 21 organiser on a site, it's legitimate, is it not, for a 22 particular employer, if it can, to try and influence the 23 outcome of union elections by, for instance, donations. 24 There's nothing wrong with the employer donating money to 25 the union for an election, is there, to support the 26 particular candidate? 27 A. I suppose if it's transparent and disclosed, there's 28 nothing illegal about that, I suppose. 29 30 Q. No, there's not. Anyone in a free country can donate 31 to a legitimate cause. You agree with that? 32 A. Yes. 33 34 Q. And in the internal power structure in a union, where 35 people are lobbying for election for a particular office, 36 that's a legitimate cause; do you agree with that? 37 A. Yes. 38 39 Q. That's what elections are for? 40 A. It's vital that there are elections in unions. 41 42 Q. Indeed. So if an employer wanted to donate money to 43 support a particular candidate or a particular ticket, 44 there's no reason why it shouldn't, is there? 45 A. As long as, as I say, it's transparent, disclosed. 46 47 Q. Yes.

.10/06/2014 (3) 226 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 A. An employer would be entitled to do that, I would 2 think. 3 4 Q. We've covered so many topics this morning I'm not sure 5 I've got them in the right sequence. Can I come then, 6 before I take you through some questions I have about your 7 statement itself, to what you told counsel assisting this 8 morning about the redundancies paid to Mr Wilson and 9 Mr Blewitt and the others who left the union in August 10 1995. Do you recall that? 11 A. Yes. 12 13 Q. You said several times there had been no formal 14 instruction to the bank to freeze the accounts prior to 15 those payments being mooted; is that right? 16 A. You might - there's two different freezing issues 17 here. 18 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. One was the freezing of the old Victoria branch 21 accounts from 17 February. There hadn't been a formal 22 instruction given to the bank about freezing that account 23 or any of the accounts that operated under the branch that 24 had been dissolved. In terms of the redundancy payments, 25 I thought that we had an EFT block or something on the 26 account that would stop the money going out. Mr Corbett 27 had told me, I think it might have been on the 16th, that 28 the EFT block would be put in place and that was 29 circumvented by the cheques being taken from Sydney down to 30 Melbourne. 31 32 Q. You say "circumvented". Is it not the case that there 33 was a solicitor present at the bank at the time that those 34 cheques were processed? 35 A. This is on 17 August? 36 37 Q. Yes. 38 A. My understanding is there were more than one solicitor 39 present. 40 41 Q. Indeed, you said at 224, I think this is the same 42 event, that at 26 February 1996 Mr McCarthy in Melbourne 43 had told you somebody from Slater & Gordon, but in fact it 44 was someone from Maurice and Blackburn, wasn't it? 45 A. No, both. 46 47 Q. Both? There was somebody from Slaters and somebody

.10/06/2014 (3) 227 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 from Maurice Blackburn? 2 A. That's my understand. 3 4 Q. The solicitor at Maurice Blackburn who was then 5 advising the union in respect to this matter was then 6 John Cain Junior; is that correct? 7 A. That's correct. 8 9 Q. Mr Cain is a highly reputable practitioner, you agree 10 with that? 11 A. I would assume so. I don't know him. 12 13 Q. Well, he was the Victorian Government Solicitor for 14 about 10 years, did you know that? 15 A. No. 16 17 Q. No? 18 A. No. 19 20 Q. And a very experienced practitioner. Do you agree 21 with that - even at that time? 22 A. Well, I assume he was. I didn't know him. I've never 23 met him. I don't know him. 24 25 Q. You're not suggesting, are you, that somebody of 26 Mr Cain's stature would have taken part in something that 27 was improper or illegal? 28 A. I'm not making any suggestions of any nature. 29 30 Q. Indeed, there had been, in fact, the vote of the 31 national executive, had there not? 32 A. There had been, yes. 33 34 Q. You just didn't approve of it? 35 A. That's correct. 36 37 Q. It's really as simple as that, you didn't approve of 38 it? 39 A. I think there's an added complication to that. 40 41 Q. What's that? 42 A. Two weeks earlier Mr Smith was reading from his 43 solicitor's letter at the finance committee meeting. 44 45 Q. He hadn't approved of it either. 46 47 MR STOLJAR: He hadn't finished his answer.

.10/06/2014 (3) 228 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 THE WITNESS: He was reading from letters that he said 3 were from his solicitor, that the solicitor's opinion was 4 that Wilson would - should be charged and so forth. There 5 was great consternation about the legitimacy of the 6 operation of these accounts and within two weeks they were 7 organising for their departure from the union and the 8 payment of moneys out of an account. That seems to me to 9 be a little irregular. 10 11 DR HANSCOMBE: Q. I follow that and you're still troubled 12 by it 20 years later, but in fact the national executive 13 had in the end approved it, hadn't it? 14 A. And thankfully later the court held it was invalid. 15 16 Q. You don't want to say "yes" to that question? 17 A. Well, I think it's definitely the case and I think 18 I indicated that I thought that even though there were 19 troubles with the counting of the votes on the national 20 executive, they had enough numbers to push that through at 21 the time. 22 23 Q. When you say there were troubles with the counting of 24 the votes, you're referring to the evidence you gave 25 earlier that you didn't feel complete confidence in the 26 method for working out the number of members a person was 27 entitled to vote on behalf of; is that right? 28 A. It was an ongoing difficulty working out the voting 29 strengths of the individual members of the national 30 executive. 31 32 Q. It's not a system you approved of? 33 A. No, it's a system that I helped construct. 34 35 Q. But you didn't think it was satisfactory? 36 A. The problem was that I needed properly audited 37 financial accounts upon which to base the 38 notional membership contribution that we could divide by 39 the annual subscription fee and a number of the accounts 40 were - or some weren't even provided and others were in a 41 pretty dismal state. We had ongoing problems being 42 convinced that the particular audit, the particular 43 accounts that were being put forward as the basis upon 44 which the national executive voting strength would be 45 determined were authentic or able to be relied upon. 46 47 Q. Let's just take that apart a bit. The membership fee

.10/06/2014 (3) 229 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 was a fixed amount; is that right? 2 A. There's an annual - there was, and I don't know about 3 today, but there was in those days an annual -- 4 5 Q. At that time - I'm sorry, I meant at that time. Let's 6 call that X dollars, whatever X is, it doesn't matter, it's 7 the same amount for everybody. 8 A. Yes. 9 10 Q. A branch or an entity or a division or whatever that 11 doesn't provide you with an audited account and doesn't 12 give you the numerator for your fraction which you're going 13 to divide by X to work out how many members that bloc 14 represents, that will actually diminish the voting strength 15 of that entity or division, won't it, because they won't 16 have a numerator for their fraction? 17 A. It wasn't necessarily a case that they didn't give us 18 an account. They give us accounts that weren't properly 19 established so that we could feel confident that the money 20 that we were looking at was either actually there or it 21 came from membership contributions and this is the heart of 22 some of the problem with these secret unaudited accounts 23 and if the money from those winds up into somehow or 24 another being taken into account in the voting strength, 25 then the numbers on the national executive are very fluid, 26 I suppose you'd describe it as. You can't determine it 27 properly. 28 29 Q. I haven't got realtime transcript here but I thought 30 that part of the previous answer was in some instances 31 accounts were not provided. Isn't that what you said? 32 A. In some instances there was nothing actually provided. 33 34 Q. And that was what I was asking you about. 35 A. Sorry. 36 37 Q. For any such entity which does not provide you with a 38 numerator for the fraction, that entity's voting strength 39 will in fact be diminished, will it not? 40 A. Well, it wouldn't have any votes. 41 42 Q. Exactly. 43 A. Mmm. 44 45 Q. That's not a problem from the point of view of the 46 national executive, is it? Working out the voting 47 strengths on the national executive, not being provided

.10/06/2014 (3) 230 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 with an account is not a problem? Have I asked that 2 question badly? You don't follow it? Shall I rephrase it? 3 A. If you could. 4 5 Q. Yes, of course. Voting block 1 has two accounts. It 6 has account A and account B. I don't mean your accounts A 7 and B, call them alpha and beta if you like, and they give 8 you the alpha number and they don't give you the beta 9 number. When you work out the voting strength of block 1, 10 you'll get a smaller voting strength than you would if 11 they'd given you both alpha and beta, won't you? 12 A. That's correct. 13 14 Q. So for any account which is not provided to you, that 15 does not in fact do anything but disadvantage whoever might 16 have put it forward as part of his voting strength; isn't 17 that right? 18 A. Not strictly speaking. 19 20 Q. Why? 21 A. Well, because we don't know what's in your example, 22 account alpha. How was alpha established? 23 24 Q. That's not actually what I'm asking you either. 25 That's a different question. Any account which has kept, 26 to use your word, secret, cannot assist in improving the 27 voting strength of somebody on the national executive. It 28 could if you slipped the money into account alpha that 29 you're talking about. 30 31 Q. Okay. So that's really the problem? 32 A. Well, I don't -- 33 34 Q. As you see it? 35 A. I'm not sure whether that was how it happened or could 36 have happened. 37 38 Q. Could have happened. You're guessing? 39 A. A lot of guesswork in that respect. 40 41 Q. There is, there's quite a lot of speculation in this 42 statement generally; do you agree with that? 43 A. No, I don't agree with that. 44 45 Q. Okay, we'll go through some of that. You agree, don't 46 you, that these people who left in August 1995 had worked 47 for the union for some time?

.10/06/2014 (3) 231 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 A. Not all of them. 2 3 Q. Some of them? 4 A. Varying lengths. 5 6 Q. Varying lengths. Yes, of course, they hadn't all been 7 employed on the same day. You agree when people leave 8 their employment they have accrued entitlements? 9 A. That's correct; usually, yes, they do. 10 11 Q. Holiday pay, sick pay, penalties, et cetera? 12 A. Yes. 13 14 Q. Do you agree with that? 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. It may well be that some or all of what was paid were 18 such accrued entitlements. You don't know otherwise, do 19 you? 20 A. Yes, the calculations showed the breakdown of the 21 amounts, including the redundancies. Mr Hutchison, Laurie 22 Hutchison did all of that, broke it down, showed - because 23 certain - you know, the dates, the lengths of service, the 24 redundancy, if there's an annual leave entitlement or 25 something, that was all part of the calculations that were 26 done at the time. 27 28 Q. Have you put that in your statement? 29 A. Well, I'm not sure but it certainly was part of the 30 process. 31 32 Q. Yes, Mr Hutchison did the sums and there were accrued 33 entitlements? 34 A. Yes, yes. 35 36 Q. But what you put in your statement suggests the gross 37 amounts of the cheques, isn't it? 38 A. They would have been the cheques that have been drawn, 39 I think, yes. 40 41 Q. I might be wrong, it's a long statement, it's got 42 three volumes of attachments but I haven't found it, so 43 perhaps somebody will point them out to me at some point. 44 A. I thought we did have those cheques -- 45 46 Q. Yes, you've got the cheques. 47 A. Yes.

.10/06/2014 (3) 232 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. The cheques to show the gross amount? 3 A. Yes. 4 5 Q. Aren't they? 6 A. And there are some calculation figures somewhere of - 7 there are some handwritten documents from Mr Hutchison 8 somewhere, I think. 9 10 Q. Okay. We'll try and follow that up. Thanks for that. 11 12 THE COMMISSIONER: Just to clarify one thing, these 13 cheques aren't gross amounts, they're net. They're what 14 the payee's actually got. 15 16 DR HANSCOMBE: Yes, I'm sorry. I didn't mean gross in the 17 sense of pre-tax, I meant gross in the sense of whatever 18 the individual components of each person's cheque was, that 19 was the sum that that person got in their cheque. I'm 20 sorry, I didn't mean to make that confusing. My point, to 21 put it another way, Commissioner, was there weren't five 22 cheques, one for holiday pay, one for sick pay, et cetera. 23 24 Q. Did the National Construction Branch continue? 25 A. After when? 26 27 Q. After August 1995? 28 A. Yes. 29 30 Q. In fact, if Wilson and the others left, there was no 31 capacity to straighten out what had happened. Did you ever 32 ask him for assistance in "straightening out" what had 33 happened? 34 A. Mr Wilson? 35 36 Q. Yes, after he'd left, did you ever ask him to help? 37 A. Personally? 38 39 Q. Yes. 40 A. No. 41 42 Q. You've no reason to think he wouldn't have helped you, 43 have you? 44 A. Well, perhaps I should have asked him. 45 46 Q. Perhaps you should have asked him. 47 A. Yes.

.10/06/2014 (3) 233 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. But not having asked him, you have no reason to think 3 he wouldn't have helped. He didn't vanish in a puff of 4 smoke, he was still around? 5 A. I think we understood he'd gone back to 6 Western Australia after he left the union. 7 8 Q. And you were in South Australia and there are 9 telephones? 10 A. No, I was in Sydney. 11 12 Q. You were in Sydney and there are telephones and there 13 are letters? 14 A. Yes. 15 16 Q. He hadn't vanished in a puff of smoke, he was still 17 around. The plain fact is you didn't ask him to help, did 18 you? 19 A. I didn't personally ask him, no. 20 21 Q. Not only did you personally not ask him, nobody at the 22 union asked him, "Please Bruce, come and help explain all 23 this." 24 A. He was a respondent to the court proceedings. 25 26 Q. Yes. Do you know if he was ever served? 27 A. I assume he was served. 28 29 Q. I know you assume it. Do you know it? 30 A. I didn't do it myself. 31 32 Q. You didn't have any - you didn't see any evidence of 33 service? 34 A. I think there was a question of service at one stage 35 that was raised by Madgwick J, because at one proceeding 36 I think we had - certainly we had Mr Blewitt, I'm not sure 37 whether we also had Mr Wilson by telephone link. We 38 definitely had Mr Blewitt on one occasion via telephone 39 link in one of the proceedings. 40 41 Q. You tend to think of Blewitt and Wilson as a pair? 42 A. Well, they were very close. 43 44 Q. I know they were very close; and you think of them as 45 a pair? 46 A. Look, I can't categorically say that Mr Wilson was 47 also on the telephone link in that proceeding.

.10/06/2014 (3) 234 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. You can't even say if he was served? 3 A. I have been told more recently that he was served. 4 5 Q. By whom, when? 6 A. By the barrister that conducted the case on behalf of 7 the union at the time. 8 9 Q. When were you told that? 10 A. Last year, I think. 11 12 Q. You've read Wilson's statement, haven't you? 13 A. Yes. 14 15 Q. You know he says he didn't know about the case? 16 A. Yes, I think that's what he says, yes. 17 18 Q. It is what he says, you know that? 19 A. Yes. 20 21 Q. The union, so far as you're aware, never made any 22 effort to recover the payments that had been made to 23 Wilson; correct? 24 A. Well, of course, I left the union at the end of '96. 25 I don't know exactly what they did after that. 26 27 Q. Madgwick J sits in the South Australian registry, 28 doesn't he? 29 A. No, here in Sydney. He doesn't anymore, he's retired 30 now. He was a judge of the Federal Court in the industrial 31 division at the time. 32 33 Q. I thought he sat in South Australia. That's just my 34 error? 35 A. I don't think so. He may have in one case or another 36 but not in this case. 37 38 Q. The case was heard here in Sydney? 39 A. The case it was here in Sydney. The proceeding I'm 40 talking about with the telephone link was conducted in the 41 Federal Court premises in -- 42 43 Q. In Queens Square in Sydney? 44 A. It wasn't there at that time, it was across the road 45 but, yes. 46 47 Q. There was quite a lot of disagreement and indeed

.10/06/2014 (3) 235 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 tension between Robert F Smith and Wilson pretty well the 2 whole time that they were both officials of the union. Do 3 you agree with that? 4 A. Yes. 5 6 Q. And they had very different visions for how the union 7 should develop. Do you agree with that? 8 A. Yes, I would think - I think that's an accurate - yes. 9 10 Q. What I might call the old FIME model was really not 11 consistent with what Wilson wanted to do with National 12 Construction Branch. Do you agree with that? 13 A. No. In many respects the concept of the National 14 Construction Branch was a more familiar notion in FIME than 15 in the AWU. 16 17 Q. Because it had national coverage? 18 A. Yes, a branch based upon occupation or industry was 19 something that we'd sort of seen with FIME as opposed to 20 the old AWU. 21 22 Q. Yes. Wilson's vision, for want of a better word, for 23 the National Construction Branch was that it would be, as 24 you say, industry and occupationally based and it would, if 25 he could achieve it, come to rival the CFMEU in terms of 26 coverage. That was his vision, wasn't it? 27 A. Broadly speaking, I think that's correct, yes. 28 29 Q. If Robert F Smith, coming from FIME, had been able to 30 achieve something similar to grow the union into a national 31 union with broad industry based coverage, he would have 32 been very happy with that too, Smith. Do you agree with 33 that? 34 A. I think Robert F Smith had a national perspective for 35 the union, yes. 36 37 Q. So there was a rivalry between Robert F Smith and 38 Wilson? 39 A. That's true. 40 41 Q. It became, at least on Smith's part, pretty poisonous. 42 Smith made some very serious allegations against Wilson. 43 Do you agree with that? 44 A. That's true. 45 46 Q. And he made them with a fair degree of hostility and 47 antagonism?

.10/06/2014 (3) 236 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 A. That's also true, yes. 2 3 Q. Is Robert F Smith still around, do you know? 4 A. I don't know. 5 6 Q. You don't know? 7 A. No. 8 9 Q. You don't see him pop up in the Fair Work Commission? 10 A. Why would he do that? 11 12 Q. I don't know. Union officials are often in the 13 Fair Work Commission? 14 A. No, he went on to become a parliamentarian, I think. 15 I think he became the President of the Upper House of 16 Victoria. 17 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. I don't think he'd come to the Fair Work Commission. 20 21 Q. Can I take you in a little bit of detail, if I may, 22 through your various statements about the various bank 23 accounts. Do you have your statement to hand? 24 A. Yes. 25 26 Q. I'll go through them in the sequence that you've set 27 them out because it's convenient. Can I take you, first, 28 to your big heading "C" which starts at page 52. Do you 29 have that? 30 A. Yes. 31 32 Q. You set out there some general statements about the 33 financial arrangements and the rules? 34 A. Yes. 35 36 Q. Your real complaint - is this fair to say - is that 37 Wilson didn't abide by the rules? 38 A. Well, that's one of the things that appeared to me. 39 40 Q. And that's a matter of real concern to you, that he 41 didn't follow proper process? 42 A. Yes. 43 44 Q. Then over the page you start with accounts A and B. 45 Now, it's true that the signatories to both accounts were 46 Wilson and Blewitt? 47 A. Yes.

.10/06/2014 (3) 237 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. And it's also true that money was paid in by Thiess. 3 Now, you've no reason to doubt that Thiess was paying for 4 services provided, have you? 5 A. I can't recall what they said in their letter back to 6 me, but I assume that that's what they said. 7 8 Q. You've no reason to doubt that Thiess's payments were 9 legitimate. You agree? 10 A. I have every reason to doubt that. 11 12 Q. Why? 13 A. Well, because I'd never heard of the Workplace Reform 14 Association. I'd never seen a audited statements of the 15 Workplace Reform Association. It had never been reported 16 annually in any of the reporting requirements for the 17 union. 18 19 Q. I follow that you didn't know about the account. Why 20 does it follow from that that Thiess was not paying for 21 services legitimate provided; they wouldn't know what 22 accounts are audited? 23 A. I suppose it depends upon what they thought they were 24 getting for those payments. 25 26 Q. Yes. Nobody from Thiess ever rang you up and said, 27 "We have paid all this money and we haven't had our 28 services", did they? 29 A. They certainly didn't do that. 30 31 Q. You've never seen any documents that say that either? 32 A. Not that I can recall. 33 34 Q. I didn't hear that. 35 A. Not that I can recall, no. 36 37 Q. No. So the only reason that you say you doubt that 38 Thiess were getting the services they were paying for is 39 that you didn't know about these accounts; that's right, 40 isn't it? 41 A. Well - sorry, can you start that again? 42 43 Q. Yes. The only reason - I'll go back further and start 44 it again. You said you had "every reason to doubt that 45 Thiess was getting the services they were paying for". 46 About two answers ago, three answers ago you said that? 47 A. Yes.

.10/06/2014 (3) 238 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. In fact, nobody from Thiess has ever told you 3 otherwise. You've agreed with that? 4 A. Yes. 5 6 Q. And you've never seen a document to that effect - I'm 7 sorry, to the opposite effect, that they didn't get their 8 services. You've agreed with that? 9 A. Yes. 10 11 Q. So the proposition I'm putting to you is really, I 12 think, pretty simple: the only reason you have "every 13 reason to doubt" that Thiess were getting the services they 14 were paying for is the fact that you didn't know that these 15 accounts existed? 16 A. Not me so much as that no-one knew other than a 17 handful of people and they weren't - this was all secret, 18 you see. 19 20 Q. Well, "secret" has very pejorative overtones, doesn't 21 it. This was not known to you and to others on the 22 national executive, it is not the same as secret, is it? 23 A. It wasn't -- 24 25 Q. You say it is? 26 A. It wasn't disclosed to the national executive in any 27 formal sense. There was never any knowledge of the 28 establishment of this body. 29 30 Q. I understand that. You've said that several times. I 31 understand that. What I'm trying to understand is why it 32 follows from that that in the real world at Dawesville 33 services were not being provided? 34 A. If you were doing it transparently and everyone knew 35 about it, you'd have no reason to doubt it. When it's not 36 being done openly and transparently, it immediately raises 37 suspicions, doesn't it. 38 39 Q. That's a process complaint again, once the accounts 40 were established they were obliged to be reported to the 41 national executive? 42 A. Well, before you even got as far as - you never get 43 that far. If you want to use the AWU name and set up an 44 association or a bank account using its name, one would 45 think the fundamental concept would be that you would need 46 the authorisation of that organisation. The national 47 executive would need to carry a resolution saying, "We

.10/06/2014 (3) 239 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 authorise the Western Australian branch secretary and 2 someone else to form a Workplace Reform Association and 3 carry a resolution to that effect." 4 5 Q. Is it the case that for every other bank account 6 carrying the AWU name that you knew of, that the national 7 executive had authorised it in that formal way? 8 A. It would have been authorised under the rules of the 9 union, yes. For instance, if you were to establish - and 10 this happened from time to time - an account which because 11 the union was receiving grant moneys from the Government or 12 something for a particular thing, there would need to be a 13 resolution of either the branch executive or the national 14 executive authorising the establishment of an account for 15 the purposes of receiving the grant money or something like 16 that. 17 18 Q. And there's a set of rules that provide for that, are 19 there? 20 A. Yes, the rules themselves - yes, there are - parts of 21 the rules require that - or the rules require that all 22 moneys that are received on behalf of the union have to be 23 put into branch bank accounts that are held in the name of 24 the union. 25 26 Q. You say the rules further provide that the opening of 27 such an account has to be authorised by national executive? 28 A. Well, a branch or a national executive, I would think. 29 30 Q. You say the rules say that? 31 A. I'm not sure whether the rules go that far. 32 33 Q. The real truth is as simple as this, isn't it, you 34 think that's proper practice? 35 A. I don't think you could retain money in a bank account 36 with a name Australian Workers' Union on it if it wasn't an 37 account that was audited and reported annually. 38 39 Q. Just to be clear, that's the sole reason you think 40 that out there at Dawesville in fact there weren't services 41 being provided? 42 A. Well, it's not the sole reason. I mean, subsequently 43 there were numerous conversations with individuals from the 44 West Australian branch who had said to me, you know, that 45 they didn't believe that there was anything in particular 46 going on out there. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 240 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. Who? 2 A. Mark Busby. 3 4 Q. Who else? 5 A. I think - Peter Trebilco I think at one stage said 6 something along those lines. But I mean, look, there's so 7 much sort of commentary and hearsay you don't know how much 8 you can believe and how much you can't. 9 10 Q. No. Quite. 11 A. But I suppose that, you know, the major concern for me 12 was the discovery of an account that -- 13 14 Q. You didn't know about? 15 A. No-one at the national executive level of the union 16 knew about this at all. 17 18 Q. Because you didn't know about this account, it 19 necessarily follows - I'm sorry "these accounts", but in 20 particular account B which was the cheque account - it 21 necessarily follows that you have no way of knowing how 22 cheques on that account were negotiated; correct? How they 23 were drawn, how they were signed, everything else? 24 A. Well, I saw copies of the cheques. 25 26 Q. Afterwards? 27 A. Yes. 28 29 Q. You didn't have any knowledge at the time? 30 A. No. 31 32 Q. No. 33 A. No. 34 35 Q. And the copies of the cheques that you have seen 36 appear to be signed by both Wilson and Blewitt? 37 A. Not all of them. I think there might be one or two 38 that there's only one signature on it. Certainly I saw - 39 and it may not have been this account, but it was one of 40 these accounts - where there appeared to be just one 41 signature on some cheques. 42 43 Q. I want you to stick to this account. You've got 44 copies of them at tab 73, if you want to look at them. 45 A. One with only the one signature on it, it is on 46 page 638 out of the Construction Industry Fund. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 241 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. Yes, that's not at tab 73, is it? Tab 73 starts at 2 485. I didn't know you didn't have tabs, I'm sorry. It is 3 at the end of MFI2. 4 A. Yes. 5 6 Q. They're the cheques on what you've called account B. 7 There's a whole bundle of them. They go all the way 8 through to 581? 9 A. Yes. 10 11 Q. They all appear to be signed by both Blewitt and 12 Wilson? 13 A. Yes, I think that's correct. 14 15 Q. Yes. The vast majority of them are drawn to cash? 16 A. Yes. 17 18 Q. And if my arithmetic is correct, the cash adds up to 19 $223,000 and some odd hundreds? 20 A. Yes, I think we added it up at the time. 21 22 Q. I think somebody must have? 23 A. Yes. It was on an Excel spreadsheet. 24 25 Q. That's what I added it up to be. Have you read Ralph 26 Blewitt's evidence or heard it? 27 A. I heard snippets of it on the live feed. I came -- 28 29 Q. You haven't read it in its entirety? 30 A. No. 31 32 Q. Are you aware that Blewitt has given evidence that the 33 vast that the vast majority of these cheques, it's fair to 34 say, and I can take you through them one by one if I need 35 to, were in fact not signed by Wilson, they were signed by 36 Blewitt and the stamp of Wilson's signature affixed. Are 37 you aware of that? 38 A. I think I heard some evidence to that effect when I 39 was watching it. I think they were talking about each of 40 them having a stamp of the other. 41 42 Q. That's what Mr Blewitt says? 43 A. Right. 44 45 Q. And you would know from reading Wilson's statement 46 that he disputes that? 47 A. Yes.

.10/06/2014 (3) 242 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. And you will also know from reading Wilson's statement 3 that he says Blewitt had no authorisation ever to use his 4 stamp to sign a cheque. You know that, you've read 5 Wilson's statement? 6 A. Yes, right. 7 8 Q. So you have no way whatever of knowing that these 9 moneys were not entirely incorrectly dealt with by Ralph 10 Blewitt, do you? 11 A. That's true. 12 13 Q. And you have no way of knowing that $220,000-plus that 14 was taken out in cash was not for the benefit of Ralph 15 Blewitt, do you? 16 A. No, I don't know who it was for the benefit of it. 17 18 Q. Indeed you don't. So when you said at the end of your 19 paragraph 328, as a statement of fact, Mr Wilson's also 20 co-signed all of the cheques, it is your assumption, from 21 looking at the cheques and nothing else; is that correct? 22 A. Yes, strictly speaking, I suppose that should say that 23 it appeared that Mr Wilson also co -- 24 25 Q. That's right. Strictly speaking, it should, that's 26 exactly right. 27 A. Yes. 28 29 Q. It looked like that and you assumed it? 30 A. I don't think that's a - yes, well, that's correct. 31 32 Q. Indeed, at your paragraph 336 you actually conflate 33 Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt into one united entity. In fact, 34 you've never distinguished between what Blewitt was doing 35 and what Wilson was doing when you thought about these 36 events, have you? 37 A. I haven't tried to sit down and dissect what part of 38 all of this may have been solely the work of Wilson or 39 solely the work of Blewitt. 40 41 Q. Yes. I'm not being critical of you. I'm just saying 42 that's the fact. In your mind, the two of them acted 43 together and that's how you think of these events in 44 retrospect? 45 A. Yes. 46 47 Q. Your account C, which is the Construction Industry

.10/06/2014 (3) 243 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Fund, we've got copies of all those cheques too and they're 2 actually in your volume 3 that you were looking at before. 3 I wonder if you could have a look at those. Your statement 4 says at tab 78 but if you give me a minute I'll tell you 5 the page number. 6 7 THE COMMISSIONER: It is 572. 8 9 DR HANSCOMBE: If the Commission pleases, yes, it is. 10 11 Q. Do you have that? 12 A. Yes. 13 14 Q. Now, as you say in your statement, the vast bulk of 15 what comes into that account, which is $23,000 in round 16 numbers, comes in on 16 January 1995 and that was a cheque 17 drawn -- 18 19 THE COMMISSIONER: Did you say cheque coming in on 20 16 January? 21 22 DR HANSCOMBE: Yes. No, I've got that wrong. 23 24 THE COMMISSIONER: It came in on 12 April, 1995, $46,550. 25 26 DR HANSCOMBE: Yes, that's so. Thank you, Commissioner, 27 I am sorry to have got that wrong. 28 29 Q. That's back on your page 58 and it's transaction 30 802250, $46,550 into the Construction Industry Fund. 31 32 THE COMMISSIONER: You said page 58. Is that correct? 33 34 DR HANSCOMBE: It's page 58 of the statement. 35 36 THE COMMISSIONER: You may be right. I was thinking it 37 might be 62. 38 39 DR HANSCOMBE: It's also at 62, that's so. That's coming 40 into this account but it's going out of account B into 41 account C on that date. 42 43 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. 44 45 DR HANSCOMBE: Yes, Commissioner. That's page 58 and page 46 62, if you'd put those two sides of the transaction 47 together. The cheque that comes out - Commissioner there's

.10/06/2014 (3) 244 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 a little bit of detail in this. I notice the time. Would 2 it be a convenient time? 3 4 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. In a sense, it's partly a 5 question for you. If it's more convenient for you to deal 6 with it now we can deal with it now. Alternatively we can 7 deal with at 2pm. 8 9 DR HANSCOMBE: I think it probably would be better for me 10 to get the detail quite right for you and not waste your 11 time. 12 13 THE COMMISSIONER: Could I just this question and it's not 14 intended any critical way. 15 16 DR HANSCOMBE: How much longer. 17 18 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. We have Mr Jukes who has come 19 down from Queensland. If your cross-examination precludes 20 him finishing his evidence this afternoon, so much the 21 worse. 22 23 DR HANSCOMBE: I don't know how long Mr Stoljar will be 24 with Mr Jukes, but can I tell you I won't be very long. 25 26 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Jukes's is a relatively confined 27 statement. 28 29 DR HANSCOMBE: Yes, it is and I won't be long with him. 30 We don't want to cross-examine Ms Palmer at all. 31 32 THE COMMISSIONER: Good. We'll resume at 2pm. 33 34 DR HANSCOMBE: If the commission pleases. 35 36 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 245 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 UPON RESUMPTION: 2 3 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Dr Hanscombe. 4 5 DR HANSCOMBE: Thank you, Commissioner. 6 7 Q. Mr Cambridge, you told me before lunch that anyone who 8 wanted to open an account that used the AWU name had to 9 have the approval of the national executive; is that right? 10 A. I think it would be either the relevant branch 11 executive or the national executive. 12 13 Q. Sorry, you did say that - or the relevant branch 14 executive, but they had to have formal approval to use the 15 name on a bank account? 16 A. What do you mean by "formal approval"? 17 18 Q. Well, I mean a resolution of a branch executive or the 19 national executive? 20 A. I would assume so, yes. 21 22 Q. They don't actually state that as a rule, that's an 23 assumption you made? 24 A. No, that's what I was trying to explain before. 25 I don't think there's a rule which says you must get a 26 resolution of the national executive. I think it's an 27 implied position from the rule which says all moneys that 28 are received by the union must be held in bank accounts 29 that are held in the name of the union and that that would 30 be the basis upon which, if you were going to set up a bank 31 account with the union's name in it you - well, I would - 32 you'd make sure there was a duly carried resolution of the 33 national executive. 34 35 Q. I certainly follow you would. 36 A. Yes. 37 38 Q. In fact, there were a number of accounts that used the 39 union name that apparently were set up without anybody's 40 formal approval. One of them, as an example, is the AWU 41 members' welfare account. That had nothing to do with 42 Wilson and it had no normal approval, did it? 43 A. Before he became a signatory? 44 45 Q. Yes. 46 A. That's correct, yes. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 246 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. Yes. 2 A. Yes. 3 4 Q. And indeed all the little accounts that -- 5 A. TattsLotto and so forth. 6 7 Q. The TattsLotto account and so on. I mean, you're not 8 seriously suggesting that there was something improper 9 about the use of the union's name per se, your real 10 objection is that this money paid by Thiess for the 11 Dawesville project should have come to the union in a 12 central account. That's really the trust of your problem, 13 isn't it? 14 A. No, I'm not sure that's the entirety of it. I think 15 that certainly accounts like the TattsLotto - and we said 16 this at the time - we don't - you shouldn't really use the 17 union's name but it's understandable. None of the money 18 that's going in there is money that's intended for the 19 union and so we'd prefer it if you didn't use the union's 20 name but that's just understandable because the staff have 21 just said, "Well, let's set up a TattsLotto account." If 22 you're establishing an account into which, for instance, 23 cheques that are made out to the Australian Workers' Union 24 go into, I think that's a different proposition. 25 26 Q. I follow that, but the cheques that went into the 27 Workplace Reform Association actually were going to a 28 different local entity, they were going to that 29 incorporated association, some of them? I thought all of 30 them did? I'm corrected by counsel assisting. At least 31 some of the cheques that went into the Workplace Reform 32 Association account were made out to a separate legal 33 entity, the Workplace Reform Association? 34 A. There were some, from memory, that were just made out 35 to the Australian Workers' Union. Some were made out to 36 Australian Workers' Union Workplace Reform Association. 37 I think there's a slight variation on that, in terms of the 38 wording. 39 40 Q. The Workplace Reform Association was, in fact, a 41 separate entity? 42 A. Yes. 43 44 Q. They weren't moneys that were directed to the union 45 per se, they were directed to another entity? 46 A. Well, one that was directed to the Australian Workers' 47 Union with no mention of the Workplace Reform Association

.10/06/2014 (3) 247 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 couldn't have been. 2 3 Q. I accept that, but those which were directed to the 4 other entity were directed to a different entity. You have 5 to agree with that? 6 A. Well, the cheque's made out to the Australian Workers' 7 Union Workplace Reform Association. 8 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. Yes. 11 12 Q. And they're a different entity? 13 A. Yes. 14 15 Q. But you've still got a problem with that? 16 A. I have a very big problem with that. It's something 17 that looks like the Australian Workers' Union but it's not 18 the Australian Workers' Union. 19 20 Q. And that's the problem? 21 A. It's a big problem, I think. 22 23 Q. I'll finish with the Workplace Reform Association. 24 There was one other issue. You said you didn't know about 25 the Kerr Street property until the funds were identified 26 later on, Kerr Street, Fitzroy? 27 A. Yes. 28 29 Q. Some of the vast amount of the proceeds of the WRA 30 went into Kerr Street, you know that? 31 A. Now - well, later, yes. 32 33 Q. Yes. 34 A. Yes. 35 36 Q. So you didn't know about Kerr Street after afterwards? 37 A. That's right. 38 39 Q. You've read Mr Wilson's statement and you know he says 40 it was used for union purposes? 41 A. Right. 42 43 Q. Have you read that? 44 A. I think I recall reading it. You know, I didn't read 45 it in a great deal of - with forensic examination, 46 I suppose, but I -- 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 248 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. Did you not? Why was that? 2 A. Well, I was a bit rushed at the time and I really just 3 went to those parts that I thought were connected to me in 4 some way or another. So there would be bits of that that 5 I couldn't categorically say that I've read every sentence, 6 put it that way. 7 8 Q. Okay. Well, he says part of it was fitted out as an 9 office, that there was a whiteboard and meeting table, two 10 phone lines and so on. Do you remember reading that? 11 A. I think I recall that, yes. 12 13 Q. And he says it was used for union purposes and you've 14 got no reason to doubt that, have you? 15 A. I don't know - well, it just doesn't - it's - it 16 doesn't really make a lot of sense to have a union office 17 within a kilometre or two of a union office, so to speak, 18 does it. 19 20 Q. Is that an answer? 21 A. Well, it - have I got any reason to doubt that that 22 was the case? 23 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. It doesn't - there's an implausibility about that idea 26 that immediately jumps to mind. 27 28 Q. Namely, that the meetings should have been happening 29 at Drummond Street? 30 A. And they would have, yes. 31 32 Q. If the funds from the sale of Kerr Street had been 33 paid across to the AWU, other than a process complaint 34 about the way in which the WRA account was set up, you 35 would have had no complaint that investing in property was 36 a legitimate thing to do with funds and the funds would 37 come back to the union; agreed? 38 A. The union owned property throughout Australia, 39 probably still does. 40 41 Q. Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that? 42 A. No, nothing at all. I think that -- 43 44 THE COMMISSIONER: Wouldn't it would depend what the union 45 rules say about it. You're talking about property for 46 investment? 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 249 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 DR HANSCOMBE: Yes. 2 3 THE COMMISSIONER: It would depend on what the union rules 4 said at the time. 5 6 DR HANSCOMBE: I haven't read, Commissioner, this union's 7 rules in great detail, but I think it is fair to say I've 8 never seen a set of union rules that doesn't say the union 9 can buy property. 10 11 Q. Do you know if the AWU rules permitted the purchase of 12 property? 13 A. They would have permitted the purchase of property. 14 15 Q. Yes, and that's -- 16 17 THE COMMISSIONER: That's a distinct thing from purchase 18 for investment which I think -- 19 20 DR HANSCOMBE: Yes. 21 22 THE COMMISSIONER: -- was the starting point; it can be a 23 distinct thing. It may have power to buy property so that 24 it can have offices or something like that or it may be 25 able to buy a coal mine or something to make money out of 26 the investment. 27 28 DR HANSCOMBE: I follow. 29 30 Q. Do you know whether the AWU's rules permitted the 31 purchase of property for an investment? 32 A. I don't think they explicitly ruled it in or out. 33 Certainly the rules would permit the union to hold 34 property. The property would have to be one again held in 35 the name of the union and certainly I can say that there 36 were properties held which involved the union occupying one 37 floor and leasing our other floors to, you know, commercial 38 leasing. 39 40 Q. And that's a common thing in unions, isn't it? 41 A. I think certainly from my experience in those days, a 42 lot of unions had those sorts of arrangements, yes. 43 44 Q. Yes. So the real problem with Kerr Street - the real 45 problems plural, there were two problems from your 46 perspective with Kerr Street. The first is the title was 47 not held in the name of the union; correct?

.10/06/2014 (3) 250 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. The second is that the proceeds of the sale didn't 4 come back to the union? 5 A. That is another problem, yes. 6 7 Q. Yes. You know that in fact that property was held in 8 Blewitt's name? 9 A. We discovered that, yes. 10 11 Q. Have you ever asked Blewitt to account for the 12 proceeds? 13 A. I haven't personally, no. 14 15 Q. Do you know if anybody has? 16 A. I think the court case that involved - and this 17 finalised after I left the union, so I'm relying here upon 18 subsequent conversations that I've had with people, but 19 I think that there was an as described value to the 20 Kerr Street value. 21 22 Q. Ascribed by who? 23 A. By the Federal Court. The court - this was the - I 24 understand that there was an order made against Wilson and 25 Blewitt for the return to the AWU of amounts which included 26 an ascribed value of the Kerr Street property. 27 28 Q. That's the proceeding in which you were the plaintiff? 29 A. No, I was not the plaintiff at any of the proceedings 30 as such. Ludwig would have been the plaintiff. 31 32 Q. What proceeding was that, was that the Queensland one 33 or the Sydney one? 34 A. This was the Sydney one. This is the file that got 35 lost. 36 37 Q. Before Madgwick J? 38 A. Yes. 39 40 Q. Right, and -- 41 A. And this is - I think I touched upon it earlier on, a 42 fairly recent conversation - when I say "recent", last year 43 I think it was - with the barrister that had carriage of 44 the matter. 45 46 Q. Who was that? 47 A. Andrew Herbert.

.10/06/2014 (3) 251 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. For Ludwig? 3 A. Yes. 4 5 Q. And he told you that an order had been made against 6 Wilson and Blewitt? 7 A. Yes. 8 9 Q. Together or separately? 10 A. Well, I think there were orders on both of them. 11 I think it was a joint or severable type of proposition and 12 he explained to me in some detail the way in which they had 13 a process server serve that on Mr Wilson in the alleyway 14 behind the restaurant. 15 16 Q. Do you know about any attempt to serve Blewitt and 17 recover from Blewitt? 18 A. I think that they were doing similar things with 19 Blewitt. 20 21 Q. "I think they were doing similar", so you really don't 22 know? 23 A. Well, Mr Herbert didn't mention Blewitt but -- 24 25 Q. No. 26 A. -- was -- 27 28 Q. Sorry? 29 A. Gave more detail about the difficulty that they were 30 having with the process server on Mr Wilson. 31 32 Q. Do you know if Blewitt was in the country at the time? 33 A. I don't know. 34 35 Q. Blewitt was the registered proprietor. In the normal 36 course of events you would expect the balance of the 37 proceeds after paying out the mortgage to come to him; do 38 you agree with that? 39 A. Yes, so he was the owner of the property, he was -- 40 41 Q. He was? 42 A. Yes. 43 44 Q. Yes. 45 A. Yes. 46 47 Q. And yet, he wasn't the person that the primary focus

.10/06/2014 (3) 252 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 was on for recovery of the proceeds? 2 A. Well, the proceedings were against him and Wilson and 3 as I say, look, it happened after I'd left the union, so 4 I'm just relying upon what I've been told in recent times 5 because of the publicity surrounding the renewal of all of 6 this. 7 8 Q. Yes, about a case many years ago? 9 A. Yes. 10 11 Q. Can I take you back - I think I'm finished with the 12 WRA. Before we broke for lunch we were looking at the 13 Construction Industry Fund. Do you have still volume 3 of 14 your attachments with you? 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. Do you have that? Can you go to page 556, please and 18 then over to 557. Do you have that? 19 A. Yes. 20 21 Q. That appears to be the setting up of that account, do 22 you agree? 23 A. Yes. 24 25 Q. And it's signed on 556 by - do you know who it's 26 signed by? 27 A. No, I don't. 28 29 Q. You might be helped if you go over the page and see 30 who signed opposite "Ralph Edwin Blewitt"? 31 A. It looks like Ralph's signature. 32 33 Q. It does? 34 A. Yes. 35 36 Q. It seems he has opened that account, do you agree? 37 A. Yes, that's what it look like. 38 39 Q. Where it says "anyone to sign"? 40 A. Sorry, where does it say that? Oh, there yes. 41 42 Q. 557 on point 4 of the page? 43 A. "Anyone to sign". 44 45 Q. "Anyone to sign"? 46 A. Yes. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 253 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. You told me before you didn't know that Wilson had a 2 signature stamp, didn't you, not until after the fact? 3 A. I think back at the time there was - no, I don't - 4 I can't really recall whether there was any discussion 5 about a signature stamp. 6 7 Q. So you're not in a position, are you, to say anything 8 about whether the ostensible signature for Wilson is 9 actually signed by him or a stamp? 10 A. On this document here? 11 12 Q. On 557? 13 A. No, I mean - I don't know. I don't know. 14 15 Q. Then at 572 through to 584, you've attached all the 16 cheques that were drawn on that account? 17 A. Yes. 18 19 Q. And the first one appears to be signed by Wilson and 20 all the rest are signed by Blewitt; correct? 21 A. There's one that's got two signatures on it for some 22 reason. 23 24 Q. So there is, I'm sorry, yes. Again you don't -- 25 A. That's highly irregular. There wouldn't be a 26 legitimate union account that would be set up with just one 27 to sign. That's - you know, that -- 28 29 Q. I follow that. 30 A. That's very, very unusual. 31 32 Q. It appears to have been set up, you saw, at 556 by 33 Ralph Blewitt, doesn't it? 34 A. Yes. 35 36 Q. The one at 574, again, you couldn't say if that's a 37 signature by Wilson or a stamp, could you? 38 A. No, I couldn't say for certain, but I'd - no, you 39 couldn't say for certain. 40 41 Q. No - well, you couldn't, perhaps somebody else could? 42 A. Someone who had the actual cheque would probably be in 43 a better position. 44 45 Q. And you know Wilson says that cheque number 1 for 2616 46 was reimbursement for expenses he had legitimately incurred 47 and you don't have any basis to challenge that, do you?

.10/06/2014 (3) 254 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 A. Sorry, which cheque are we looking at? 2 3 Q. Cheque number 1 - that's at 572. Wilson's statement 4 says that was reimbursement for expenses he had incurred on 5 his credit card for the union? 6 A. Diners Club? 7 8 Q. Yes, whatever the credit card was, he said that was a 9 legitimate set of expenses that he had incurred and you 10 don't know otherwise, do you? 11 A. No, I don't. 12 13 Q. And there's a cheque number 6 for Rialto Cleaning 14 Services and all of the rest are to cash. So you've got no 15 way of knowing who got that money and what they did with 16 it. Do you agree with that? 17 A. That's correct. 18 19 Q. And then you've also put in your statement, back at 20 562, you've got list of transactions and then at 563 and 21 564, 565, you've got the actual bank statements. Can you 22 see those? 23 A. Yes. 24 25 Q. The address changed on 13 June 1995 to Warwick Road, 26 Duncraig, WA. Do you know whose address that was? 27 A. I'm not certain. I think it was Ralph Blewitt's. 28 29 Q. And a couple of months after that address changed in 30 fact, Blewitt and Wilson had left the union; correct? 31 A. They both left at the same time, on or about 32 17 August. 33 34 Q. Yes. 35 A. Yes. 36 37 Q. But these cheques continued to be negotiated, signed 38 by Blewitt. That's what the material shows, do you agree? 39 A. Yes. 40 41 Q. And you have no way of knowing what Blewitt did with 42 that money? 43 A. No. 44 45 Q. Turning now to your account D, you've attached the 46 cheques beginning at 598. There are two cheques apparently 47 signed by Wilson as well as Blewitt. One is cheque number

.10/06/2014 (3) 255 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 17. No, it's not. That's the wrong cheque number. 2 3 DR HANSCOMBE: Excuse me a moment, Commissioner, if you 4 would. 5 6 THE COMMISSIONER: If you're looking for a cheque signed 7 by Mr Wilson and whether Blewitt? 8 9 DR HANSCOMBE: No, I was looking for a cheque signed by 10 Mr Wilson, which in Mr Cambridge's statement is said to be 11 cheque 17 but it isn't. I think it's cheque - I'm trying 12 to correlate Mr Cambridge's statement with these cheques. 13 I'm sorry to hold you up, Commissioner. 14 15 Q. 19 appears to be signed by Wilson and 20 appears to be 16 signed by Wilson, do you agree? 17 A. Cheque number 19 for cash of $3,020. 18 19 Q. Yes, appears to be signed by Wilson? 20 A. Correct. 21 22 Q. And so does cheque number 20? 23 A. Cash for $2,880? 24 25 Q. Yes. 26 A. Yes. 27 28 Q. That appears to be signed by Wilson? 29 A. Yes. 30 31 Q. There are two other cheques - there are five other 32 cheques which appear to be signed by Wilson, which are 2, 33 5, 6, 8 and 11 and you could not tell me, could you, other 34 than that appears to be Wilson, but you couldn't say if 35 that's an actual signature or a stamp? 36 A. No, I couldn't say that. 37 38 Q. No. All the rest are signed by Blewitt alone, do you 39 agree with that? 40 A. Well, suppose the same proposition develops, doesn't 41 it. 42 43 Q. Yes. 44 A. I don't know whether it's him actually signing them or 45 a stamp or what but -- 46 47 Q. No. You also don't know the ones that were signed by

.10/06/2014 (3) 256 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Blewitt alone what Blewitt was doing? 2 A. Well, that's if they were signed by him. 3 4 Q. By Blewitt? 5 A. Yes. 6 7 Q. Has somebody told you that Blewitt had a stamp? 8 A. Well, as I understood it, there was a suggestion that 9 each of them had swapped stamps, or something, at some 10 stage. 11 12 Q. Do you know who made that suggestion? 13 A. I thought it came out in the proceedings. 14 15 Q. Do you know who made that suggestions? 16 A. No. 17 18 Q. Ralph Blewitt made that suggestion. 19 A. Right. 20 21 Q. You've read Wilson's statement and you know he denies 22 that he ever had a stamp of Blewitt's signature? 23 A. Right. 24 25 Q. But you have no basis for thinking he did, other than 26 what Blewitt said? 27 A. Yes, that's right. 28 29 Q. That's right? 30 A. Yes. 31 32 Q. Can I take you on to account E. 33 34 THE COMMISSIONER: I think it starts around 616, if you're 35 looking in volume 3 - MFI3. 36 37 DR HANSCOMBE: Yes, thank you, Commissioner. 38 39 Q. That account, you say there was a cheque which was 40 deposited by Mr Blewitt, money - that was the 22980 taken 41 out of the election fund and put into the staff social club 42 account on 17 January 1995. 43 A. Yes. 44 45 Q. You don't know if that's anything to do with Wilson, 46 do you? 47 A. I'll just have to look at that cheque, does it only

.10/06/2014 (3) 257 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 have Blewitt's signature on it? Yes, that's only got the 2 one signature on it, that's correct. 3 4 Q. And you don't know it's anything to do with Wilson at 5 all, do you? 6 A. No. 7 8 Q. That account you've set out all the copies of the 9 cheques at page 686. I'm sorry, now we've moved to the 10 welfare account, have we? No, it's not 686. Can we move 11 to the welfare account and can you have a look at the 12 cheques beginning at 686. You've said this account - or 13 have I muddled them up, there are so many accounts - 14 you've got some photocopied cheques that are identified by 15 you as being to Town Mode but the photocopies are 16 completely illegible and I wanted to ask you how you could 17 identify them? 18 A. I can remember seeing Town Mode. I went and had a 19 look at the premises. 20 21 Q. At the bank? 22 A. No, the actual Town -- 23 24 Q. Yes, but how did you identify it from the cheque? 25 A. It was quite clear. I don't know. The photocopying 26 has lost it, I suppose. 27 28 Q. There is a 694 and 695 and you say yourself in your 29 statement they're illegible? 30 A. Well, they are here. They weren't when I saw them for 31 the first time. 32 33 Q. I don't understand that. What did you see and where 34 did you see it? 35 A. There's a cheque. If the photocopy -- 36 37 Q. A cheque or a copy? 38 A. A copy of a cheque provided by the bank and made out 39 to Town Mode. There were two cheques, from memory. 40 41 Q. You saw it at the bank or at this Commission? 42 A. No, it was sent to me by the Commonwealth Bank. 43 44 Q. Back in the 90s? 45 A. Yes. 46 47 Q. Okay. So you remember from when you saw it back in

.10/06/2014 (3) 258 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 the 90s that that's what this cheque said? 2 A. I think if I got my September '96 statement, there'd 3 be a better copy of it attached to that and you'd see "Town 4 Mode" on it. 5 6 Q. Your September 1996 statement? 7 A. For the proceedings that were in the court at the 8 time, the invalidity proceedings. 9 10 Q. Right. You think there were copy cheques attached to 11 your statement? 12 A. Oh, yes, there were. Most of this material has been 13 sort of re-assembled from the material that was attached to 14 that, in 1996. 15 16 Q. I thought it had been assembled from contemporaneous 17 notes you dictated into a master document? 18 A. Well, it's a combination of all of those. 19 20 Q. Does the matter document still exist? 21 A. "The whiz". 22 23 Q. "The whiz", I'd forgotten the name. Does it still 24 exist? 25 A. Yes, it does. Victoria Police have it. 26 27 Q. Victoria Police have it, not the Commission? 28 A. The Victoria Police have the paper copy. There are a 29 variety of electronic copies of it that are accessible. 30 31 Q. But these cheques you remember? 32 A. Oh, they were clearly made to Town Mode because 33 I actually went to the Town Mode premises in Melbourne to 34 look at the place to find out what on earth would be going 35 on there. 36 37 Q. You know that - some of these cheques I can take you 38 through cheque by cheque if you want - Wilson gives 39 explicit evidence that was the reimbursement of the graphic 40 designers or the reimbursement for election expenses and so 41 on. Do you remember reading that? 42 A. I remember him saying that in the statement, yes. 43 44 Q. It's legitimate, isn't it, to pay the graphic designer 45 for doing the election pamphlets? 46 A. Not with union money it's not. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 259 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just interrupt. Does 2 Mr Cambridge anywhere say the opposite of the matters 3 you're putting to him? As I understand it, this part of 4 the statement, for example, and there are others to which 5 you've gone earlier, it merely sets out and tries to 6 assemble in prose, as it were, the effect of various 7 documents. 8 9 DR HANSCOMBE: Yes. 10 11 THE COMMISSIONER: I don't read anywhere any assertion 12 that Mr Wilson did anything in particular. You're trying 13 to say that Mr Wilson did something that was in some way 14 wrong. You, for example, in your last group of questions 15 is asserting that it was perfectly appropriate for 16 Mr Wilson to do something. 17 18 DR HANSCOMBE: Yes. 19 20 THE COMMISSIONER: Did Mr Cambridge ever say the opposite? 21 22 DR HANSCOMBE: As I understood what he said before we 23 broke for lunch, indeed before the morning break to counsel 24 assisting, he does appear to be saying - and I may be 25 wrong, Mr Cambridge might correct me - that the use of 26 election funds for union election purposes is wrong. 27 28 THE COMMISSIONER: Which particular sentence are you 29 trying to destroy in Mr Cambridge's statement? 30 31 DR HANSCOMBE: Not in the statement. It really goes to 32 what he said this morning in response to counsel assisting 33 leading further evidence from him, but it relates to, and 34 in my submission is picked up by, the notice we gave as to 35 wanting to cross-examine about these accounts. I accept 36 completely, Commissioner, that the Town Mode questions were 37 pure curiosity. I couldn't see how anyone could identify a 38 payee from those. 39 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. What's your next 41 question? 42 43 DR HANSCOMBE: If the Commission please. I had just asked 44 the witness if he contended that the reimbursement of 45 payment to a graphic designer for election pamphlets was 46 wrong and his answer was yes, if you use union money. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 260 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Q. And you say that for anything else that was the 2 reimbursement of election debt; is that right? 3 A. Sorry, I don't follow you. 4 5 Q. The reimbursement of any other election-incurred debt 6 from in account would be wrong? 7 A. In the form that it came by that time, you see, it's 8 got a mixture of private money and union money in it and so 9 to use union money for the payment of an election pamphlet, 10 as you describe it, in my view, would be wrong. 11 12 Q. Do you say that also for paying for Spyridis for 13 renovations to the union office? 14 15 THE COMMISSIONER: Which union office? 16 17 DR HANSCOMBE: The AWU union office. 18 19 THE COMMISSIONER: The one in the name of Mr Blewitt or 20 some other union's office? 21 22 DR HANSCOMBE: Mr Wilson's statement at paragraph 264 says 23 that the $15,000 paid on 27 April 1995 was to pay Spyridis 24 renovations to the union office. That's 263: 25 26 At some stage, the AWU, Victorian Branch, 27 moved to premises in Spencer Street, 28 Melbourne, although there may have still 29 been AWU branch people at Drummond Street. 30 I have looked at Cambridge's statement and 31 I see a transaction on 27 April for 32 $15,000. At that time, the NCB, the 33 Construction Branch, paid Kon Spyridis 34 $15,000 for works done on the refit. 35 36 I read that to be the new premises in Spencer Street but 37 I might be wrong about that. It's not as tightly drafted 38 as it might be. 39 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Your question is specific. Did the 41 witness answer? 42 43 DR HANSCOMBE: No. He hasn't answered it yet. 44 45 THE COMMISSIONER: It might help if you just asked it 46 again. 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 261 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 DR HANSCOMBE: Q. Do you remember that the union moved 2 premises to Spencer Street in 1995, the Victorian branch? 3 A. The Spencer Street -- 4 5 Q. Melbourne? 6 A. The Spencer Street office was the existing branch of 7 the FIME branch where Robert F Smith was the secretary. 8 When the NCB was created, the NCB was going to then occupy 9 the Drummond Street offices, which is the old AWU branch 10 offices. 11 12 Q. If the NCB was paying for refurbishments they would 13 have been, in fact, at Drummond Street? 14 A. That would be correct, yes. 15 16 Q. I had that muddled up. This is not entirely clear 17 but assume that the refit was at Drummond Street, it really 18 doesn't matter if they were both official branches, there's 19 nothing wrong with reimbursing the builder for the 20 renovations? 21 A. You would have to pay the builder. 22 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. If you got work done on your premises you'd have to 25 pay the builder. 26 27 Q. Yes. 28 A. What you should do with the audited account, of 29 course, is not make the cheque out to cash. 30 31 Q. I follow that. 32 A. Yes. 33 34 Q. I follow that you find the process offensive and I can 35 well understand that, but in fact there's nothing wrong 36 with the payment? 37 A. You had a have to - if you engaged a builder to do 38 some renovations you'd be obliged to pay for them, as long 39 as they perform the work to your satisfaction. 40 41 Q. Yes. Your account G, moving on, Australian Workers' 42 Union number 3 account. It didn't have a lot of money in 43 it, it had something over $6,000. You've said at your 44 paragraph 380 the address of the account holder at 14 July 45 1995 was Drummond Street. On that date the address was 46 changed to the Trades Hall, council box 4. You say this 47 account was "apparently conducted by Mr Wilson." You have

.10/06/2014 (3) 262 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 no details for expenditure. It was closed about 17 August 2 1995. Wilson resigned. Accordingly, you believe this 3 account may contain misappropriated AWU funds. Do you 4 stick by that? That's a pretty slim basis to accuse 5 somebody of misappropriation, isn't it? 6 A. No. If you set up an account which has the union's 7 name in it, this one with the added words "number 3 8 account", and it's never been the subject of any audit or 9 reporting that I'm aware of, that gives me a strong 10 impression that this is an account which may contain 11 misappropriated AWU funds. 12 13 Q. The lack of proper process is sufficient - go back. 14 Do you accept that the word "misappropriate" connotes 15 something less than honest? 16 A. Definitely. 17 18 Q. Indeed, it's what lawyers call the actus reus of 19 theft, misappropriation; do you agree with that? 20 A. Yes. 21 22 Q. And yet you consider that the lack of proper process 23 is sufficient to draw a conclusion of possible theft. Is 24 that a fair summary? 25 A. The establishment of the account, without it being 26 transparent, without it being the subject of the reporting 27 and auditing requirements for a registered organisation, 28 but containing the name of the Australian Workers' Union, 29 suggests to me that money that was intended for the 30 Australian Workers' Union went into an account that was 31 established without it being known about by the Australian 32 Workers' Union. 33 34 Q. I understand all that sentence but I'm not sure it's 35 an answer to my question. Is it -- 36 A. Sorry, to be as - to put it as simply as I can, 37 I think there's a reasonable inference that can be drawn if 38 you set up an account, use the name of the Australian 39 Workers' Union, that contains money which would logically 40 have been directed to Australian Workers' Union but is 41 never actually the subject of being audited accounts of the 42 Australian Workers' Union. 43 44 Q. And that connotes theft? 45 A. I said to me that's a basis to infer that there's been 46 some misappropriation, yes. Money that was intended to be 47 directed to the Australian Workers' Union goes to this

.10/06/2014 (3) 263 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 other account that the Australian Workers' Union doesn't 2 know about. 3 4 Q. That to you connotes theft? 5 A. There's an inference - I think you can draw the 6 reasonable prospect that there's some misappropriation of 7 money that was intended to go to the Australian Workers' 8 Union. 9 10 Q. You don't want to say "yes" to me. 11 12 THE COMMISSIONER: His actual evidence in 381 was: 13 "I believed that this account may contain misappropriated 14 AWU funds." 15 16 DR HANSCOMBE: He says "accordingly". 17 18 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. 19 20 DR HANSCOMBE: That appears to be -- 21 22 THE COMMISSIONER: I want to stress the verb, "may 23 contain". 24 25 DR HANSCOMBE: I accept that and that's why I said 26 "connotes", not "shows" or "proves" or "establishes". 27 28 THE COMMISSIONER: I think you may be right but I think 29 the distinction is too subtle for me. 30 31 DR HANSCOMBE: I'm sure that can't be right, Commissioner. 32 33 THE COMMISSIONER: "Connotes" means inference. 34 35 DR HANSCOMBE: I want the witness to answer what I submit 36 is a simple question, whether he has a proper basis for the 37 use of that word. If you consider -- 38 39 THE COMMISSIONER: He's given about three answers 40 indicating what he think a proper basis is. 41 42 DR HANSCOMBE: Whatever will best assist you, 43 Commissioner. 44 45 THE COMMISSIONER: If you think asking him one more 46 question will assist, ask it, but I think he's answered - 47 his last three answers taken together are quite a detailed

.10/06/2014 (3) 264 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 indication of his point of view. 2 3 DR HANSCOMBE: They're certainly a clear indication of his 4 point of view. 5 6 Q. You feel you're justified in using the word 7 "misappropriated" there? 8 9 THE COMMISSIONER: "May contain misappropriated AWU 10 funds". 11 12 DR HANSCOMBE: Q. Yes. 13 A. Yes, I stand by that. 14 15 Q. Moving on to the next account, which you've called 16 account I, that had nothing to do with Mr Wilson, so far as 17 you're aware, did it? 18 A. No, it didn't appear to have any direct connection to 19 Mr Wilson. 20 21 Q. Your next account is account K. That's the 22 re-election fund account and you say yourself the 23 signatories are not known? 24 A. Mmm. 25 26 Q. Yes? 27 A. They may have subsequently emerged but I think that at 28 the time that I was doing the investigation, we didn't get 29 that degree of detail. There are pieces of the jigsaw 30 still to this day that are missing. 31 32 Q. Yes. Now, at page 711, your attachments, what you 33 list, as you say, is a list of transactions; correct? 34 A. I think that's all we got from the bank, yes. 35 36 Q. No, that's what it is, that's what it calls itself and 37 that's what you say it is. You say, "I have no idea why 38 Mr Wilson paid that sum to Thiess." If you don't know who 39 the signatories were, how do you know that's anything to do 40 with Mr Wilson? 41 A. Well, there must have been something that the bank had 42 given us which showed that there was a bank cheque to 43 Thiess. I think this went out at the same time that 44 everything else went out, on about 17 August when it was 45 all being sort of given back. 46 47 Q. There's nothing on that document which shows that

.10/06/2014 (3) 265 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Wilson had anything to do with that payment, whatever it 2 was? 3 A. There's nothing on the document that is there at 4 tab 91. 5 6 Q. No. 7 A. But as I'm saying here, the balance of that amount of 8 the account was paid by way of a bank cheque on 17 August, 9 along with all the other bits and pieces that were going 10 back, you see. 11 12 Q. Other people left the union that day, didn't they? 13 A. A number left that day, yes. 14 15 Q. That's no reason to think Wilson made that payment or 16 indeed there's no reason to think any particular person 17 made it. All you know is that it happened? 18 A. If you go back to the documents that were involved at 19 the bank, they were all authorised, signed by Mr Wilson, 20 I'm assuming it's his signature. 21 22 Q. You're assuming its his signature? 23 A. Yes. 24 25 Q. You now want the Commissioner to accept that he 26 authorised yet another unauthorised payment, on your memory 27 of having seen a document some time in the 90s at the bank, 28 is that right, because that's all I've seen in this 29 statement? 30 A. Well, you probably don't have the benefit of whatever 31 there was in respect of the bank cheque that I've included 32 there and it may have not been picked up as these things 33 have travelled over the years. I would not have made that 34 statement that there was a bank cheque for that amount of 35 money, which was the balance of that account, to Thiess on 36 17 August if I haven't had seen it. I wouldn't have just 37 invented it. 38 39 Q. I'm not suggesting you have invented it at all. What 40 I'm suggested, as I tried to suggest to you before lunch, 41 is that you've made various assumptions, and we've seen 42 them as we've travelled through these accounts, and you 43 have agreed at some points you've made assumptions. One 44 the assumptions you've made is that whatever Blewitt did 45 Wilson did too and another assumption you've made is 46 whatever impropriety you've uncovered, Wilson was somehow 47 involved in it. Do you want to respond to that?

.10/06/2014 (3) 266 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 A. It's not for me to judge the extent of his 2 involvement, I suppose, but hopefully ultimately that might 3 be determined. 4 5 Q. But you have a particular view that he has been 6 engaged in improper conduct, don't you? 7 A. I've held that view for many years. 8 9 Q. You have? 10 A. Yes. 11 12 Q. And that leads to you make various assumptions and 13 speculations; do you agree? 14 A. I can accept that, yes. 15 16 Q. Yes. And that's occurred as you've mulled over these 17 events for the last 20 years on and of and as you have gone 18 through these documents in several forums, as you say 19 yourself, that has hardened into a firm view. Do you 20 agree? 21 A. I don't think it's hardened over the years. I think 22 it's exactly the same today as it was then. 23 24 Q. Okay; you've always held that view? 25 A. When I saw all of this, I thought it was the case that 26 there'd been some significant misconduct, if that's the way 27 you might describe it. 28 29 Q. Yes. And you've ascribed it to Bruce Wilson? 30 A. Not solely. Wilson and Blewitt. 31 32 Q. Wilson and Blewitt are one entity, really, in your 33 mind, aren't they? 34 A. Well, as I think I said before the break, I didn't sit 35 down and try and dissect just how much Wilson had done and 36 how much Blewitt had done. I didn't do that. 37 38 Q. No. Indeed, you've never done it? 39 A. No, I haven't. 40 41 Q. No. There are just a couple of other things I need to 42 clean up with you and we'll be finished. Can I cast your 43 mind back to the 2 August meeting 1995. That's the meeting 44 that, shall we say, involves a candid exchange of views 45 between Mr Smith and Mr Wilson. Is that a fair 46 description? 47 A. Candid, yes.

.10/06/2014 (3) 267 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. It was candid, wasn't it? 3 A. Oh, it was a fairly - yes, it was a fairly hostile 4 meeting at times. 5 6 Q. Yes, some pretty robust views were expressed? 7 A. That's not uncommon in the AWU. 8 9 Q. It is not uncommon in unions generally, is it? 10 A. Some unions are more polite than others, I think. 11 12 Q. This was at the impolite end of the spectrum; is that 13 right? 14 A. I think you'd have to say it was at that end of the 15 spectrum. 16 17 Q. It wasn't at the EPESMA end? 18 A. No - well, EPESMA, yes. 19 20 Q. So Mr Graham Roberts you say at 135 put to Wilson he 21 hadn't been putting moneys into the NCB central account. 22 Do you remember? 23 A. Yes. 24 25 Q. That was a pretty aggressive suggestion to make, 26 wasn't it? 27 A. Yes. 28 29 Q. And it proved, in fact, that he had been? 30 A. Yes. 31 32 Q. And he hadn't done anything wrong, had he? 33 A. In respect of that aspect, no. 34 35 Q. Yes, that's right. Wilson, you said yourself, was a 36 pretty militant unionist; do you agree with that? 37 A. Yes. 38 39 Q. And he was militant in the interests of his members; 40 do you agree with that? 41 A. Well, I suppose that becomes a very subjective 42 judgment as to ultimately what's in the best interests of 43 the members, doesn't it. 44 45 Q. It is a subjective judgment, not -- 46 A. Amongst union officials there will be very different 47 views about whether ultimately the level of militancy that

.10/06/2014 (3) 268 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 a particular official adopts is ultimately in the best 2 interests of the members. 3 4 Q. Accept that for a moment, that reasonable minds can 5 differ about what's in the interests of the members. That 6 does not change the fact that a person can be a very 7 militant union official in the interests of the members. 8 Do you agree with that? 9 A. Oh, yes. 10 11 Q. And it may well be that such a person's stance is 12 perceived differently by others in the union who have a 13 different view of what will best advance the interests of 14 the members. Do you agree with that? 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. And it's true, isn't it, that Wilson had a strong view 18 that the forging of the National Construction Branch across 19 industry, across the nation, would be good for the union 20 and good for the members? 21 A. That's how he advocated for that, yes. 22 23 Q. Yes. You don't doubt that he meant it? 24 A. No, I don't doubt that, no. 25 26 Q. Yes. And that was the object of his militancy, to see 27 this up and running, to try and get national presence for 28 his members? 29 A. Well, I don't know, I can't put myself into the mind 30 of Mr Wilson. 31 32 Q. I accept you can't, but you can hear what he says? 33 A. Yes. 34 35 Q. And that's what he said, consistently for years? 36 A. Well, the NCB hadn't been something that had been 37 spoken of for years. 38 39 Q. It was spoken of from 1992, wasn't it? 40 A. Not that I recall. 41 42 Q. Not? 43 A. No. 44 45 Q. When do you say it was first spoken of? 46 A. After the amalgamation, so some time after '93, 47 I would think. The first time I heard about the concept

.10/06/2014 (3) 269 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 would have probably - well, it's very hard to be - you're 2 testing the memory a fair bit, but I would have thought 3 that - probably some time around the first half of '94. 4 5 Q. As late as that? 6 A. Yes. 7 8 Q. Okay. There's just one other topic I think that 9 I need to take you to. Do you know a man called Brian Hem? 10 A. Yes. 11 12 Q. Do you still know him? 13 A. No. 14 15 Q. No? You say that in June 1996 Mr Hem drove you to the 16 Commission in Melbourne. Do you recall that journey? 17 A. Yes. 18 19 Q. During that journey Hem told you that Wilson had 20 handed him an envelope containing money? 21 A. Yes. 22 23 Q. Do you remember what he told you? Not the summary in 24 your statement, do you remember what he actually said to 25 you? 26 A. The actual words? 27 28 Q. Yes. 29 A. Well, the best record of that would be in "the whiz". 30 31 Q. Would be -- 32 A. In "the whiz". Do you remember "the whiz"? 33 34 Q. I do remember "the whiz". Where's "the whiz"? 35 A. Victoria Police has got "the whiz". 36 37 Q. You haven't got a copy? 38 A. Not on me, no. 39 40 Q. You say you dictated this into "the whiz"? 41 A. Yes, I think I can remember exactly where I was when 42 I dictated that particular piece. 43 44 Q. Yes. 45 A. It was in Nauru House at the Commission premises and 46 I ducked out to the lobby to dictate what Wayne had told me 47 in the car when he'd driven me down there.

.10/06/2014 (3) 270 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. One of the things he told you was that he'd only 3 recently remembered it? 4 A. No. 5 6 Q. He didn't tell you that? 7 A. He told me later on that he'd only recently remembered 8 about the other thing to do with the construction industry. 9 10 Q. Yes, I'm sorry, that's my error. 11 A. Yes. 12 13 Q. Did he give you any more detail about this $5,000? 14 Not from your statement but from your memory. 15 A. It was an envelope with I think, you know, 50s in it, 16 something like that. 17 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. It was a total of $5,000. The best version of that is 20 it in "the whiz" and I don't have it. 21 22 Q. Why was he him telling this? This was within days of 23 the case concerning this union in the IRC, wasn't it? 24 A. There had been a number of cases. 25 26 Q. Yes. 27 A. There had been just one - a lot of them were running 28 simultaneously. There was the case to establish that there 29 was an invalidity in respect of the redundancy payments. 30 There was a case to establish that we could legitimately 31 retain the money that had been sort of going backwards and 32 forwards from the members welfare account to the employers 33 and then back to us and then there was an invalidity 34 proceeding, what would be described as the big one, which 35 is the one that the September 1996 affidavit was prepared 36 for, which set out the discovery of the various accounts, 37 including the Workplace Reform Association and so there 38 were a number of proceedings that were sort of just 39 developing as 1996 unfolded. 40 41 Q. That one is September 1996, is it? 42 A. Yes. 43 44 Q. That couldn't have been what prompted him to say this 45 because this is in June 1996. 46 A. I don't know what prompted Wayne to tell me at the 47 time, other than - I'm making another assumption here -

.10/06/2014 (3) 271 I W CAMBRIDGE (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 that it was just part of the ongoing controversy. There 2 were articles on a daily basis -- 3 4 Q. But you don't really know. He just volunteered it? 5 A. Yes. I didn't question him or anything. He just 6 decided to tell me. 7 8 DR HANSCOMBE: If the Commission pleases. 9 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Does any other legal 11 representative wish to ask Mr Cambridge anything? 12 13 MR LEWIS: No, thank you, Commissioner. 14 15 THE COMMISSIONER: Anything more, Mr Stoljar? 16 17 MR STOLJAR: No, thank you, Commissioner. 18 19 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Cambridge may be excused? 20 21 MR STOLJAR: Yes. 22 23 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much for your 24 attendance, Mr Cambridge, you're excused. 25 26 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 27 28

.10/06/2014 (3) 272 N N JUKES (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 A. I have. 2 3 Q. Do you have a copy of that statement with you in the 4 witness box? 5 A. I do. 6 7 Q. Is the content of that statement true and correct? 8 A. It is. 9 10 Q. You have referred in that statement to a bundle of 11 exhibits which is marked Jukes MFI1? 12 A. That's correct. 13 14 MR STOLJAR: I tender the bundle, Commissioner, and I ask 15 that the witness statement also be received into evidence. 16 17 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Is there any objection to that? 18 19 DR HANSCOMBE: No. 20 21 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Jukes' witness statement will be 22 received in evidence and so will the bundle and it will be 23 known as Jukes MFI1. 24 25 JUKES MFI #1 MR JUKES' WITNESS STATEMENT TOGETHER WITH 26 BUNDLE OF EXHIBITS MARKED JUKES MFI1 27 28 MR STOLJAR: Q. I just wanted to ask you some very brief 29 questions, Mr Jukes. If you'd go to paragraph 9 of your 30 statement, you are describing there some negotiations 31 between Mr Wilson and Thiess. Back in that time, 32 1991/early 1992, what was your position at Thiess? 33 A. I was the state manager for Thiess in WA up until late 34 1991 and then I moved to Brisbane around December 1991 to 35 take up a role in Brisbane. I was still responsible 36 directly for WA. The state manager, Mr Joe Trio, replaced 37 me and reported directly to me. 38 39 Q. But you were based in Brisbane from the end of 1991? 40 A. That's correct. 41 42 Q. The negotiations to which you refer in paragraph 9 43 plainly took place before the end of 1991? 44 A. To the best of my recollection, discussions started 45 with Bruce Wilson in late 1991 and then followed into early 46 1992 and culminated in the letter that I had prepared and 47 sent across to the west to be signed that's in my

.10/06/2014 (3) 273 N N JUKES (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 statement. 2 3 Q. The letter is the letter which appears at page 1 of 4 Jukes MFI1? 5 A. That's correct. 6 7 Q. Just coming back to paragraph 9 of your statement for 8 a minute, you say that Thiess agreed to fund the cost of 9 and it should be "an AWU representative". To your mind was 10 Thiess funding a representative of the AWU or of an entity 11 called the Workplace Reform Association, or did you not 12 draw much distinction in your own mind? 13 A. No, I didn't draw any distinction. At the discussions 14 at the time with Bruce, it was all that he was representing 15 the AWU, I was representing Thiess. I thought I was 16 dealing with the AWU. The Workplace Reform Association 17 came into existence after the discussions had commenced 18 with Bruce and the agreement had been made to basically 19 fund somebody to assist with the training. 20 21 Q. What did you understand the association to be? 22 A. I didn't have any real understanding of it. I thought 23 it was just something the AWU was setting up to handle 24 training. 25 26 Q. In paragraph 10 you say that there was an agreement 27 that Thiess would pay for an AWU representative to be 28 seconded to Thiess on a full-time basis. I take it that 29 the letter to which we've already made reference, the one 30 at page 1 of MFI1, sets out the detail of the arrangement? 31 A. That's correct. 32 33 Q. At paragraph 19 you say that you had some discussions 34 with Mr Trio and Mr Pulham and you formed the belief that 35 the AWU did provide a representative to facilitate 36 training. Tell me if this is correct or not - you yourself 37 weren't on the site, you'd moved to Brisbane; is that 38 right? 39 A. That's right. 40 41 Q. Any knowledge that you had about what was happening on 42 the ground derived from what you were told by either 43 Mr Trio or Mr Pulham? 44 A. That's correct. 45 46 Q. You say in 19 that the service provided waned over the 47 course of the project. Did someone say that to you?

.10/06/2014 (3) 274 N N JUKES (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 A. It would have been Mr Trio or Mr Pulham. This matter 2 was investigated by the WA police around this time and 3 they'd made inquiries about Thiess and about the services 4 provided by the AWU and I made inquiries of either 5 Mr Pulham or Trio at that time. 6 7 Q. And one of those two gentlemen -- 8 A. Suggested that the service waned or the quality of the 9 service was relatively poor, or some words to that effect, 10 so some dissatisfaction with the service, but definitely a 11 service was provided. 12 13 Q. In paragraph 26 of your statement you make reference 14 to some arrangements or possible arrangements between 15 Thiess and Melbourne Water. Did you have any discussions 16 that you can recollect with Mr Wilson, or anyone else from 17 the AWU, about Thiess being invoiced for works associated 18 with that project? 19 A. No, I didn't have any association with that at all. 20 21 Q. You just don't know anything about it? 22 A. No. The reason it appears in my statement was I was 23 asked by the Western Australian police to provide all 24 records of moneys paid to the AWU Workplace Reform 25 Association, so I went to the internal Thiess accounts 26 department and had them prepare all invoices that had been 27 paid and copy those and provided them to the WA police and 28 as part of that set of documents, I'd tendered up the 29 documents that related to Melbourne Water because they were 30 paid through to the WA Workplace Reform Association. 31 32 Q. You've had a look today at Mr Wilson's statement in 33 these proceedings. 34 A. Very briefly. 35 36 Q. Very briefly. I just want to ask you this - do you 37 recollect having a dinner or at least having a meeting, if 38 not a dinner, with Mr Wilson, Mr Ludwig and others in 39 Sydney in around about 1991? 40 A. I recall being in Sydney and meeting with Mr Ludwig, 41 Mr Wilson and Mr Albrecht from Thiess was present. 42 Mr Albrecht and I had gone to I think a delegation of state 43 secretaries that was being held in Sydney at the time. 44 Mr Albrecht and I attended that delegation. I don't recall 45 having lunch or dinner with Wilson or Ludwig, but we 46 certainly had discussions about trying to lift the agenda 47 for the AWU with regards to training.

.10/06/2014 (3) 275 N N JUKES (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 THE COMMISSIONER: Q. How do you spell Mr Albrecht's 3 name? 4 A. It's A-L-B-R-E-C-H-T, Commissioner. 5 6 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 7 8 MR STOLJAR: Q. Just developing that a little - was 9 there some concern on the part of Thiess about the level of 10 training? 11 A. The industry back in 1992 was quite fragmented. 12 There was a lot of demarcation disputes between various 13 unions, unions merging. The AWU certainly wasn't strong on 14 training its members. The efficiency in the industry was 15 quite poor, certification, there were no standards, no 16 safety standards for operating plant and equipment and 17 Thiess was keen to try to develop some national standards 18 so that operators that were transferred around the 19 countryside could take some accreditation with them. 20 21 Q. Did you have discussion about an entity separate from 22 the AWU, an incorporated association that would provide 23 training? 24 A. Not in any detail, no. We are thought we were dealing 25 with the AWU. 26 27 Q. When you say "Not in any detail", can you recollect 28 any conversation at all on that topic? 29 A. No, none, none. 30 31 Q. Are you able to say, sitting here, whether it's likely 32 you would have had any such discussions with Mr Albrecht or 33 anyone else? 34 A. Very unlikely. I can't recall any discussion about 35 any association. We were there to talk about the training 36 agenda and to try to get national support for what Thiess 37 was doing in WA. 38 39 Q. National support from the AWU? 40 A. From the AWU, yes. 41 42 MR STOLJAR: Yes, I don't have anything further, 43 thank you, Commissioner. 44 45 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Dr Hanscombe. 46 47 DR HANSCOMBE: If the Commission pleases.

.10/06/2014 (3) 276 N N JUKES (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1

.10/06/2014 (3) 277 N N JUKES (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 provided to the project. 2 3 Q. Indeed, it was Glen Ivory who went on to the site and 4 did training? 5 A. I don't know. 6 7 Q. You don't know? 8 A. No. 9 10 Q. You don't dispute it then, do you? 11 A. No, not at all. I don't know whether he did or he 12 didn't. 13 14 Q. That level of sort of on the ground micro-management, 15 that's not really your concern at your level, is it? 16 A. No, that's correct. 17 18 Q. You would have been concerned that Thiess was paying 19 out money if training hadn't been provided? 20 A. Sometimes we're not always happy with the service we 21 get, but I would expect at least some service for the 22 money, yes. 23 24 Q. Absolutely. There's nothing, is there, that you 25 recall or that you can produce by way of a complaint to 26 Thiess, "This is really not up to snuff. We're not going 27 to pay for it"? 28 A. No. 29 30 Q. "It isn't happening; we're not going to pay for it"? 31 A. No. 32 33 Q. No. At that time the CFMEU was getting quite involved 34 in training, wasn't it, and setting up training programs? 35 A. Very much so and that had sort of occurred on the 36 eastern states in particular. We were still very 37 fragmented in the west, but it was occurring, yes. 38 39 Q. That was of interest to you to see this rise in the 40 standards and professionalism of your workers? 41 A. That's correct. Similar schemes had started in the 42 east with the CFMEU on workplace reform and workplace model 43 sites, yes. 44 45 Q. That was equally attractive to the workers as a reason 46 for joining one union or another, that they would get a 47 national accreditation, they would get Certificate 4 or 5

.10/06/2014 (3) 278 N N JUKES (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 or whatever they got? 2 A. That's correct. And there was a fair bit of stealing 3 of one another's members in those days. There was a real 4 desire to have something to offer your members, yes. 5 6 Q. It was a significant thing to offer the members to be 7 able to say, "I've got Certificate 4 in" such and such, 8 scaffolding or heavy maintenance or whatever? 9 A. Correct, and important from an efficiency point of 10 view that you don't have to put people through more 11 training programs once they're certified, yes. 12 13 Q. It was important from your point of view because it 14 lays to rest significant occupational health and safety 15 concerns that otherwise are a constant worry for the 16 employer? 17 A. It should be part of the training, yes. 18 19 Q. At some point the project at Dawesville had to 20 wind down? 21 A. That's correct. 22 23 Q. When you say the service waned over the course of the 24 project, it would be natural, wouldn't it, for it to wane 25 as the project wound down? 26 A. Potentially, but I think - I've seen the invoices and 27 we obviously paid for full-time support until the end of 28 the project, but yes, the project ran very intensively for 29 almost three years and it would have wound down reasonably 30 quickly, yes. 31 32 Q. And then it stopped, it was over? 33 A. Yes. 34 35 Q. Indeed, it was a three-year project? 36 A. Yes, that's correct. 37 38 THE COMMISSIONER: Would any other legal representative 39 like to ask Mr Jukes any questions? 40 41 MR LEWIS: No, thank you, Commissioner. 42 43 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Stoljar. 44 45 MR STOLJAR: Mr Jukes can be excused. 46 47 THE COMMISSIONER: Q. Thank you for going to the trouble

.10/06/2014 (3) 279 N N JUKES (Dr Hanscombe) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 of coming here, Mr Jukes. You're excused from further 2 attendance. 3 A. Thank you, Commissioner. 4 5

.10/06/2014 (3) 280 O N PALMER (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 DR HANSCOMBE: No, Commissioner. 3 4 THE COMMISSIONER: The statement will be received into 5 evidence and so will the documents, which from now on will 6 be known as Palmer MFI1. 7 8 PALMER MFI #1 STATEMENT OF OLIVIA NORA PALMER TOGETHER WITH 9 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS BEING PALMER MFI#1 10 11 MR STOLJAR: Q. Can I ask you this, Mrs Palmer. I take 12 it that, sitting here today, you don't have a detailed 13 recollection of the conveyancing relating to the 14 Kerr Street property and really although you've - I'll take 15 that in steps. Is that correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 18 Q. In your statement you've gone through and made 19 comments on quite a number of the documents in MFI1, but 20 that's really based on your reading of the documents now 21 and your comments rather than your recollection of what 22 occurred at the time? 23 A. Yes. 24 25 Q. Is that fair? 26 A. That's correct, yes. 27 28 Q. Can I just ask you a couple of questions about your 29 practice. Do you have a copy of the folder of documents, 30 the conveyancing file there? I'll provide you with a copy. 31 The numbering on this bundle is a little curious. You just 32 have to look at the top left-hand corner. There are the 33 letters "ONP" and then a number. There are a number of 34 handwritten notes in the bundle. For example, if you go to 35 ONP297 -- 36 A. 297? 37 38 Q. 297. Look at the numbering in the top left-hand 39 corner. 40 A. Yes. 41 42 Q. Is that handwriting your handwriting? 43 A. It is. 44 45 Q. Then on the next page, 298, that's also your 46 handwriting? 47 A. Yes.

.10/06/2014 (3) 281 O N PALMER (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 2 Q. You'll see that both of those notes begin with the 3 word "to", certainly the one on 297 says "to" and then 4 "Heidi" and further down "from" and then "Heidi"? 5 A. Yes. 6 7 Q. Is that how you would record telephone calls? 8 A. Yes. 9 10 Q. So you would put "to" or "from" depending on whether 11 the call was to and from the person? 12 A. Yes. 13 14 Q. Likewise, on the next page you've got some telephone 15 calls to Thomson and co and then there's a Mr Hedditch and 16 Elisha, I think, or Julia G - that's again just telephone 17 calls? 18 A. That's right. 19 20 Q. The bottom one would be internal calls? 21 A. Yes. 22 23 Q. In contrast, for example, if I take you to 161, is 24 that also your handwriting? 25 A. Yes. 26 27 Q. You'll see at the bottom of the page there's 28 "Attending Mr Wilson re above". Would that be a telephone 29 call or an attendance? 30 A. I'd say that would be an attendance. 31 32 Q. Because you don't have "to" or "from" and it says 33 "attending"? 34 A. Yes. 35 36 MR STOLJAR: I have nothing further, thank you, 37 Commissioner. 38 39 THE COMMISSIONER: Q. Could I just ask you one question? 40 These documents that Mr Stoljar has just been showing you, 41 at the bottom of each of them it says "O Palmer, 19 January 42 2013". Does that mean that on that day they were 43 authenticated by you for some purpose? 44 A. Yes, when I was interviewed by the police and that 45 was -- 46 47 Q. I see. Your statement that has been received into

.10/06/2014 (3) 282 O N PALMER (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 evidence, which is dated 23 May, that's based on a 2 statement you made to the police around January? 3 A. Yes. 4 5 THE COMMISSIONER: Very well, I understand. 6 7 MR STOLJAR: Q. The ONP numbering, is that numbering 8 that was put there by the Victorian police? 9 A. Yes. 10 11 MR STOLJAR: Yes, nothing further, thank you, 12 Commissioner. 13 14 THE COMMISSIONER: Dr Hanscombe? 15 16 DR HANSCOMBE: No, your Honour. 17 18 THE COMMISSIONER: Any questions? 19 20 MR LEWIS: Nothing from me, Commissioner, thank you. 21 22 THE COMMISSIONER: Q. You're fortunate, Mrs Palmer, 23 no-one wants to ask you any questions. Thanks very much 24 for coming. You're excused from further attendance. 25 A. Thank you. 26 27

.10/06/2014 (3) 283 O N PALMER (Mr Stoljar) Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 MR STOLJAR: I can assist you to some extent, 2 Commissioner. I can indicate that the only persons to whom 3 the Commission circulated Mr Wilson's statement were 4 persons who in the Commission's view were affected by it, 5 or potentially affected by it; that is to say, persons who 6 have been involved in these proceedings or their legal 7 representatives. Otherwise, it hasn't circulated the 8 statement to anyone else, certainly not to any person in 9 the media. 10 11 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I'm correct in thinking, am I, 12 that it was circulated not only to, for example, people who 13 were giving evidence in the next week or later in the 14 hearing, but to other people as well? 15 16 MR STOLJAR: I'll just take some instructions. It wasn't 17 circulated to all persons who are giving evidence in the 18 current round of hearings. It was only circulated to legal 19 representatives of some of the witnesses who are giving 20 evidence in these proceedings to enable them to make 21 comment because it appeared that they might be affected by 22 matters in Mr Wilson's statement. 23 24 THE COMMISSIONER: For example, the Australian Workers' 25 Union, were they given a copy? 26 27 MR STOLJAR: Yes, or their legal representatives were 28 given a copy, yes. As I understand it, Mr Blewitt's legal 29 representatives were given a copy and the legal 30 representatives for Slater & Gordon were given a copy. 31 There may be others but I'm not in a position at the minute 32 to give an exhaustive list, but that is the type of 33 category of person who has been given a copy. 34 35 THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I think that, strictly 36 speaking, answers your question, Mr Hanscombe. 37 38 DR HANSCOMBE: I think it does, Commissioner. What it 39 really leads me to do - and I ought to have foreshadowed 40 this to Mr Stoljar - is to ask you to make a direction that 41 persons who are provided with a copy of the statement of 42 another witness for the purpose -- 43 44 THE COMMISSIONER: Just take that slowly so I get the 45 detail down. The direction that persons provided -- 46 47 DR HANSCOMBE: With a copy of a statement to the

.10/06/2014 (3) 284 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation 1 Commission of another witness not provide that statement to 2 any other person without the permission of the Commission. 3 4 THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just suggest an amendment to 5 that? "Will not provide that statement to any other person 6 other than legal representatives". 7 8 DR HANSCOMBE: Of course. It was my understanding that 9 the practice of the Commission was to provide the statement 10 to the legal representatives and to the witness. 11 12 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. 13 14 DR HANSCOMBE: But of course -- 15 16 THE COMMISSIONER: You want, I think, a direction that a 17 person - the first person provided with a copy of a 18 statement to the Commission of another witness, will not 19 provide that statement to any person other than legal 20 representatives of the first person without the permission 21 of the Commission? 22 23 DR HANSCOMBE: Yes, Commissioner. 24 25 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Stoljar? 26 27 MR STOLJAR: I have no difficulty with a direction in 28 those terms being made, Commissioner. 29 30 THE COMMISSIONER: You have no objection? 31 32 MR STOLJAR: No. 33 34 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I will make that direction. If 35 overnight you want to refine it slightly, I'm perfectly 36 happy to modify it in accordance with any reasonable 37 refinement. 38 39 DR HANSCOMBE: Thank you, Commissioner. 40 41 THE COMMISSIONER: We will adjourn until 10 tomorrow. 42 43 AT 3.25PM THE COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED TO WEDNESDAY, 44 11 JUNE 2014 AT 10AM 45 46 47

.10/06/2014 (3) 285 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

Load more

  105

Copy Link