Attorney General Nicola Roxon

AG Nicola Roxon refuses to answer media questions in relation to new corrupt judge laws.

The federal attorney general Nicola Roxon is ducking and weaving and refusing to answer legitimate questions that I have put to her media advisor Chris Owens in relation to new laws to deal with corrupt and derelict judicial officers. Below is the email exchange which I will get to in a moment. The proposed laws are at the second reading stage in the lower house and are meant to keep corrupt judges and magistrates accountable. Yet Mrs Roxon does not want to be accountable for those laws or any failings they may have. I know this first hand after my dealings with Chris Owens.

I was going to do a post on the failings of the proposed new laws and would have done so if I had received answers to my questions from Mrs Roxon’s office. But it is her actions that says it all and should not go unchecked

I will do an in-depth posting the new proposed laws in the near future.

As you will see in the emails I have dealt with the media advisors of the Prime Minister’s office and the media section of the federal police and they have been happy to answer my questions. Yet Mrs Roxon seems to think she is above all this and can do what she wants without any accountability.

Without a doubt her media adviser Chris Owens has been giving me the run around on her instructions.

Just a quick background. There are two bills currently before parliament. The first one is called the  “Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Bill 2012” and provides a mechanism that would assist the Parliament s consideration of the removal of a judge from office. This is nothing but a time waster and the second bill is called the “Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Bill 2012” and gives a legislative basis for a largely non statutory framework to assist the Chief Justices of the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Chief Federal Magistrate to manage complaints within their courts. Another time waster as the Chief justices just sweep complaints under the carpet.

What is needed in a truly independent body to deal with complaints against judges and magistrates but I will deal with that in my next post on this matter.

Now to the attempt to get some basic questions answered from Mrs Roxon’s office.

Mrs Roxon’s office issued press release a couple of weeks ago in relation to the new proposed laws with Chris Owens mobile number on it as the contact. I phoned him about ten days ago and asked him when the legislation for the bills will go before parliament and he was unsure. I said I was going to do a story on them for my site and asked if would be OK to call back with any questions. He said it would.

Last Monday I called him and asked him what the motivation for the proposed new legislation was. He said he did not know and he was not in the office. He asked if I could email him the questions and he would respond.  I let him know I was working on the post and asked if he could respond that day or the next at the latest. This seemed to be fine. Below is the email with the questions.

From: Shane Dowling

Sent: Monday, 26 March 2012 1:55 PM

To: ‘’

Subject: Media questions – Judicial Bills before parliament – Shane Dowling – Kangaroo Court of Australia article

Hi Chris

As discussed on the phone I have a couple of questions in relation to the judicial complaints bills before parliament.

1. What was the motivation for introducing the bills?

2. Were the bills introduced because of a large number of complaints about judges and magistrates?

3. In 2009 a Senate inquiry handed down a report recommending that an independent body be set up to handle complaints against judicial officers. Why has this not happened and in fact been ignored.

I am working on the article today so if you could get back to me today that would be greatly appreciated.


Shane Dowling

After two days I had not received a response so I forwarded the above email and added the text as per below.

From: Shane Dowling

To: Owens, Chris

Sent: Wed Mar 28 18:41:25 2012

Subject: FW: Media questions – Judicial Bills before parliament – Shane Dowling – Kangaroo Court of Australia article

Hi Chris

I have not received a response to the below questions. Can you give me a time frame of when I will get a response?


Shane Dowling


The above email was sent at 6.41pm and I received the below response at 10.18pm.


From: Owens, Chris []

Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2012 10:18 PM

To: Shane Dowling

Subject: Re: Media questions – Judicial Bills before parliament – Shane Dowling – Kangaroo Court of Australia article [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Shane – I’m sorry, but I won’t be able to help out. I suggest you consult the legislation, explanatory memorandum, parliamentary debates (and the Attorney’s 2nd reading speech in particular), and the previous AG’s media statements.

All of this information is available online.

Chris Owens

Press Secretary

Office of the Hon Nicola Roxon MP


Minister for Emergency Management

Ph: 03 9317 7077 (Melbourne)

Ph: 02 6277 7300 (Canberra)

Mob: xxxxxxxxxx


It took Mr Owens two days to say he would not be able to help and only after I sent a follow-up email. So I sent the below emails and received one response as per below.


From: Shane Dowling

To: Owens, Chris

Sent: Wed Mar 28 22:50:13 2012

Subject: RE: Media questions – Judicial Bills before parliament – Shane Dowling – Kangaroo Court of Australia article [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Chris

I have dealt with the Prime Minister’s media advisors in her office and the media section of the Australian Federal Police and they have been happy to answer my questions in relation to other stories I have written.

Why can you not answer the questions that I have sent you?


Shane Dowling


From: Owens, Chris []

Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2012 10:52 PM

To: Shane Dowling

Subject: Re: Media questions – Judicial Bills before parliament – Shane Dowling – Kangaroo Court of Australia article [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Shane – I don’t have anything else to add. Please check online before approaching us again.

Chris Owens

Press Secretary

Office of the Hon Nicola Roxon MP


Minister for Emergency Management

Ph: 03 9317 7077 (Melbourne)

Ph: 02 6277 7300 (Canberra)

Mob: xxxxxxxx


From: Shane Dowling

Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2012 11:16 PM

To: ‘Owens, Chris’

Subject: RE: Media questions – Judicial Bills before parliament – Shane Dowling – Kangaroo Court of Australia article [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Chris

You say “Please check online before approaching us again”. If you are not going to answer the questions that I have already sent you why should I check online and then approach again?

Based on your current stance it seems to me that you will not answer any future questions anyhow or are you saying that you will answer future questions?


Shane Dowling


From: Shane Dowling

Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012 12:37 AM

To: Owens, Chris;

Subject: FW: Media questions – Judicial Bills before parliament – Shane Dowling – Kangaroo Court of Australia article [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Chris

I have read the documents as you suggested and have not found the answers to the questions that I asked you. Those questions are below plus one more in relation to FWA. Can you please answer ASAP. I naturally assume that one of the objectives of the bills is that the government want to hold judicial officers accountable. Yet on current form the Attorney General does not want to be held accountable and is refusing to answer legitimate questions by me. I think that it is quite disturbing given that my website is the number one site in the country in relation to judicial corruption and to my knowledge I am the only one who specialises in this field which is all the more reason to answer the questions.

The questions are again in relation to the judicial complaints bills before parliament.

1.       What was the motivation for introducing the bills?

2.       Were the bills introduced because of a large number of complaints about judges and magistrates?

3.       In 2009 a Senate inquiry handed down a report recommending that an independent body be set up to handle complaints against judicial officers. Why has this not happened and in fact been ignored.

4.       Why has Fair Work Australia been exempt from the new laws given they have judicial officers (judges and commissioners).

Once again can you respond ASAP. By close of business today would be great.


Shane Dowling

I never received a response and last Friday at about 12.45pm I phoned Chris Owens and asked when he would respond to my above email and he said he was travelling and could not talk and hung up.

As you can see above in the last email I also sent it to Nicola Roxon. I phoned the attorney general’s office at about 12.50pm in Canberra and they put me through to her Melbourne office as they check her email and I said that I had spoken to Mr Owens and he had hung up. I said that I had also sent an email to Mrs Roxon and wanted a reply.

They said they would email Mr Owens and get him to reply. I said that would be a waste of time as he hung up on me and has already refused to answer the questions. I then said words to the effect that “Mrs Roxon is bringing in new laws to keep judges and magistrates accountable yet she does not want to be accountable in relation to those new laws herself which makes her a major hypocrite”

They said they would pass on the massage to her. Half an hour later the below email showed up.

From: Owens, Chris []

Sent: Friday, 30 March 2012 1:24 PM

To: ‘Shane Dowling’

Subject: RE: Media questions – Judicial Bills before parliament – Shane Dowling – Kangaroo Court of Australia article [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]


Shane – sorry I had to cut you off. I was just about to go through security at the airport. I’m travelling this afternoon – and will have another look over the weekend at your questions – however, I do believe the information is online.

End of Emails.

Based on the previous emails I have no doubt the last one by Mr Owens above is just another palm off.

There are a couple of key points.

  1. Mr Owens  said in his first email “Shane – I’m sorry, but I won’t be able to help out” and anything he said after was just ducking and weaving
  2. If the answer to the questions are online why does he not send the links and why did he take two days to tell me and only after a follow-up email.
  3. If it is all online there seems to be no need for Mr Owens to keep his job.
  4. Are all politicians going to just direct journalists to the net from now on.
  5. For all my criticism of Julia Gillard and the federal police at least their media people deal with me as they should be given that I run this site.

It is clear why Mrs Roxon is refusing to answer the questions. Her answers will not stand up to scrutiny.

It has been said by many that lack of trust is a key reason why the current government is doing so badly in the opinion polls. The first step in regaining that trust is for politicians to answer legitimate questions when put to them. Nicola Roxon obviously does not understand this.

It would be greatly appreciated if you spend a minute using Twitter, Facebook and email etc and put a link to this post (Please do not send the whole post). Just click on the icons below.

And make sure you follow this site by email which is on the top right of this page and about once a week you will get an email when there is a new post/story on this site. Thank you for your support.

79 replies »

  1. The propensity to tell casual lies, sadly, can be indicative of a propensity to tell big lies on more important issues. It is, therefore, suggestive of a worrying, flippant attitude towards dishonesty, I reckon, that Roxon, the country’s principal legal officer, provides this advice: “If your wife or girlfriend says, ‘Does my bum look big in this?’, you say, ‘No’, and get on with it.” At bottom, according to the Attorney General, if your partner’s bum look big, you lie; if the love of your life ask you for an honest assessment, lest she appear in public looking ridiculous and be the butt of hurtful, cheeky scorn, you crack a lie.
    Mind you, the evidence suggests that if the Attorney General ever asked her husband, whether her hairstyle made her look like a geek …

  2. the plot thickens shane and in all honesty mate i think its time for australians to consider an uprising very shortly.

    • Richard I couldn’t agree more ! well actually, I think it is well over due ! Just how much more are we going to take. We see cover up after cover up. They now have gutter cunning as their leader in crime and unless we fight back now it will be too late. They will ( with the aid of the odious bob brown and co ) have set in place enough structures to get away with anything they like if this isn’t stopped now.

  3. Mr Dowling,

    I am sure that you feel aggrieved by what is above, but I think you will find that you are not entitled to this material.

    At law there are already a number of means of dealing with your alleged corrupt judges.

    You are seeking to interfere with several important premises of sound democratic society.

    1. Separation of power doctrine. I hope that you have heard of this important premise, judicial integrity requires freedom from political interference. Maybe you should have asked if this legislation will interfere with this crucial requirement.

    2. representative democracy, responsible government. You are seeking answers with regards to direct government policy. I think you are fortunate to have received any time on this issue. If you look at the material as suggested then you would find the answers.

    3. I think you will find that FWA will not have its own judge. Judges may sit on matters, but the heads of FWA are not judicial officers.

    While I think there is much wrong with the ALP government it would be better to choose a wiser battle.

    • If we are not “entitled” to such material, than perhaps you people aren’t “entitled” to the tax money you steal from us daily.

    • You say I am “seeking to interfere with several important premises of sound democratic society”. How? By keeping them honest.

      You say at point 1. “Maybe you should have asked if this legislation will interfere with this crucial requirement” You have not read the post. They will not answer my questions so why do you suggest that I ask another? And you have also said “you are not entitled to this material”. You clearly contradict yourself. If I am not entitled as you say why do you suggest I ask another question.

      At point 2 you say “I think you are fortunate to have received any time on this issue” Really. I received bugger all as it is. All Australian citizens who write to the government are entitled to an answer.

      At point 3 you say “I think you will find that FWA will not have its own judge. Judges may sit on matters, but the heads of FWA are not judicial officers.” You are factually wrong there. They have their own judges and commissioners.

      You say “At law there are already a number of means of dealing with your alleged corrupt judges.” You have to be kidding!! That is what this site is about. You need to have a good look at some of the posts.

      hillbilly33 hits it on the head later in comment section where he/she says “Jeff. You set out the way things should be, but if you think that all the politically appointed judges operate with judicial integrity under the separation of power doctrine it’s obvious you have had little to do with our supposed justice system.”

      • Shane,

        If I may respond! I admire you for this stance, this sort of activism is to be commended, but it needs to be refined.

        At point one I was suggesting what you should have asked instead, these are politicians towing the party line. They will only answer questions that they feel are safe. If you read the material suggested you may get pointed in the direction. The second reading speech or the Intro to the legislation is often a good indicator. If you feel that there is a sound basis for the question go hard, but the old premise is never ask a question you don’t know the answer to.

        2. You got a response. Believe me that there are a lot who would have just referred you to the source material but no more. You may not like the response, but you did receive a response.

        3. Judges hear FWA matters but they are not employees of FWA. Commissioners are but they are not judges nor do they share the rightful benefits of Judicial independence as is required.

      • Jeff you need to read my post again because you can see in there that I read the material and found nothing to answer my questions.
        You say I got a response. No I never and the vast majority of people who read the post would agree.

        You also say “Judges hear FWA matters but they are not employees of FWA. Commissioners are but they are not judges nor do they share the rightful benefits of judicial independence as is required.”

        May I suggest you check the FWA website where it says “Primary FWA members including the President, Deputy Presidents and Commissioners who are appointed until the age of 65 and are full-time” You are factually wrong.

        By the way I did not get the email you said you sent.

      • Shane,

        I sent the email to the hotmail address. I will check it again.

        I stand corrected on the FWA presidents et al. The president is a Judge so has tenure, but the right to tenure goes hand in hand with a judicairy. This is not a Court so how the hell do they pull that one off. I do apologise on that point as I was wrong. THAT IS A DISGRACE!! HOW THE HELL WAS THAT ALLOWED???

        In which case these people have been granted the same rights as a Judge and the major issue with that is that they are all political appointments.

    • They are so corrupt they can’t even see there own corruption. With reference to the separation of power doctrine you mentioned, why are governments full of Lawyers protecting the interests of the get the guilty of Legal system? Judicial integrity might be free from political interference but can we say that judicial interference in government is the same?

  4. I still remember Roxon after the Australia Day fracas, on TV, spinning furiously and unconvincingly trying to play down and divert attention from the events. It summed her and her department up quite well. “I won’t be able to help you out” is a clear statement of having been told not to.

  5. Reply to Jeff

    If you believe in ‘ separation of powers ‘ in Australia – go back to school and finish
    grade 5 .


      • Oh Beth so cute.

        1. I am a lawyer and graduated 10 years ago.
        2. I am completing concurrently a Master of Politics and Policy and a Master of Laws. I think I can safely say my comments are with much merit.

        Me I can’t stand anything to do with the ALP and its horrendous conduct both in my state of Qld and nationally but this was not the way to get that information, it was naive and emotively driven.

        Maybe checking some details on how things operate in this society would be good.

        Separation of powers may be somewhat sullied but let it be politicians that sully it.

        The whole point is that it is a doctrine that exists in democratic society and its point is to ensure that we do not have political influence on judicial decision making as happens in a number of different regimes world wide.

        So yeah I will go back to grade 5 Beth.

  6. Why would Roxy reply to your legal questions when, had she been asked anything comparably taxing when she was health minister, she would have been just as taxed because she would have had no idea what the safe answer was then, either?

  7. Shane, while you are to be complimented on your outspokeness, be aware that you are into an area infested by lawyers some of whom who know the ropes. Jeff has made a few sound observations. Try to empathise with your questions to Roxon. Did you think such blunt questions would be or could be answered with candour? They are politicians however (she may be a lawyer but good lawyers don’t enter parliament) and have to give a reply that is equivocal or get shot down from behind. She may be well aware of the folly of her new laws but can’t be expected to admit it openly. Politicians rarely see the long term bigger picture or, if they have it pointed out (as you do), they hope the electorate will get over it all before next election.

    In Asia, the way of official correspondence on sticky issues is to discuss the issue face to face first before going into print. The print version must include face-saving avenues or compromises already agreed. Many things are best left unsaid. Implied threats are one. Then one is always assured of a favourable reply. Acceptable solutions are sought not interminable arguments.

    Having said that, I was advised by some barristers (who also pursued corruption in politics), that one way to keep them from the old plausible deniability thing is to send correspondence to the Minister concerned with clear indication that it is also being cc’d to the PM (or Premier) for information. In that way you have a backstop position against the ultimate stall of the PM coming out and saying, “I did not know this was ocurring but now I’ll have a look.”

    • You are saying that we should play the game by their rules. That is not what this site is about. And the QLD Labor Party just found out the public do not like their rules anymore.
      The questions I asked are fair and reasonable. If Roxon does not want to answer them then she can be held accountable for them not being answered. And I am aware of the email routine you suggested although I did not send it to the PM. As you can see the last email I sent to Chris Owens was also sent to Nicola Roxon. So she knows.

  8. Jeff. You set out the way things should be, but if you think that all the politically appointed judges operate with judicial integrity under the separation of power doctrine it’s obvious you have had little to do with our supposed justice system.

    You also say “At law there are already a number of means of dealing with your alleged corrupt judges”. Do you mean like the laughable way Law Society Committees allegedly deal with corrupt lawyers, in house investigations with the main aim of limiting damage to the profession? Been there, done that!

    “The nujmber of means at law” are obviously not working either as Shane’s third question indicates:” In 2009 a Senate inquiry handed down a report recommending that an independent body be set up to handle complaints against judicial officers. Why has this not happened and in fact been ignored?

    • Hillbilly33,

      Don’t get me started on the Legal Services Commissions!! They are a political body with many failings. So I agree with you there. In house investigations without the right of external review is a disgrace and contrary to the principles of open government.

      That was a senate inquiry, how independent do you think that would be!

      I am not stating that the judges are perfect but that the politicians should not interfere. If there are official causes for concern, parliament has authority to deal with this.

      This doctrine has its genesis in England when a judge could be removed or worse for making a decision contrary to the wishes of the regent. Inquiries recommend things but there are reasons that others may disagree as to the efficacy of these measures.

      • Jeff & Hillbilly3, you both seem quite dedicated to exposing the truth in our legal system. I hope that you will continue to post and to support Shane’s cause, even Jeff if you don’t 100% agree with everything he says. Jeff, I am also from Queensland and am hopefull the truth will come out about the Heiner affair, as it is a symbol for corruption in Queensland. I am also very, very worried about corruption in Banking and the dismantling of the building regulator. My husband and I are just about to start a large construction, so you can understand that I want everything to run smoothly. Let’s hope Campbell ruffles a few feathers and people are fearful enough to do the right thing…. The more people that debate issues here, the more main stream attention the site will gain.

      • Jeff, Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is the problem with the separation of powers it is absolute power. No other part of society has such power and so why should they be the exception? Regards John

  9. The truth is we are living in a dictatorship filled with liars and cheats and we only get information that the ‘higher ups’ deem us worthy of having. In many cases the reasons given for any actions are not the real ones but serve to keep people placated and docile.

    The court system will only defend itself and the overall system not the people and that is on record.

    As I have said many times now in different places, the only way to deal with the corruption is to dismantle the system and that won’t be easy while people believe in the need for a two party system.

    • Did you catch Jeff Seeney in Queensland on ABC’s election night coverage dismissing the Katter movement with the suggestion that the people shouldn’t waste their time on third alternatives and stick to the policies of the two majors. I assume he views the Greens much the same way, but they represent less of a threat to his natural constituency.

  10. keep up the good work Shane… I love your posts.. It shows me that someone (you) are aware of the sistematic divertion from the true path of justice….

  11. The AG Office failed to reply to my request also
    I asked them to explain why the Directors of Public Prosecution and the Australian Government Solicitors have been given “FULL IMMUNITY” from prosecution when it is not allowed under clause 5 of our constitution, which is our most senior law
    Full immunity also means they cannot even be arrested doesn’t it? WHY?

    • Where is the Cl 5 you refer to? In the Constitution Act or the Constitution itself?

      Everybody has a boss, and the boss can withhold payment when the servant does not do what it is he is paid to do. Even Fair Work would not argue that. If our amateur Politicians (in things legislative) draft and make law that is unconstitutional then they must correct it. We, their electors, are their boss. Not their subjects. They pay the judges that makes them their Boss!

      The problem is, who is the corrupter and who is the corruptee?

      Then there is the question of whether Parliament really manges Australia or The Establishment.

    • Neil, this was Wane Goss’s tactic to, [who was another lawyer] if he or his office didn’t like a question they just ignored it. By the looks of things it back to the good old days. Regards John


    Thanks. I am more than happy to keep the balling rolling, I have sent Shane and email and I do hope he gets back to me.

    I am working on a few policies to restore accountability in Qld politics.

    The system should work. There were a number of checks and balances but when you look at FWA its commissioners and staff are all ALP cronies almost without exception.

    Shane I see that there is a Judicial Complaints Commission in NSW, are you aware of how that has operated.

    If you get the chance check out the issues as they relate to Chief Magistrate (as she was) Di Fingleton.



    • You sound like an good man Jeff. I wish you every success. Fantastic that you are backing up Shane with inside info and keeping the ball rolling. All credit to you guys!

    • jeff, I think it would be impossible to ….keep the bastards honest… as you say. Unless this Labour lot are totally 100% gone, ‘honest’ won’t be a word that can EVER apply. They are what they are, no changing them. They need to be gone !

  13. miss mrs ms what ever it is roxons only qualifications for being attorney general are that she went to school went to school and went to school again , her only real job was a few months doing some photo copy’s at a law firm before she went into politics , to be attorney general i would expect some one about 60 with a long and distinguished career in law , no just a joke , put in the position on the basis shes a woman which the Labor party loves to , rock star women circus monkey just as long as the person is not qualified to do the job , have a look at the bios on line of these labour Champaign socialist s its quite amusing , all went to school went to school and went to school again then worked in a lw office for a few months or for a union before politics not one has every been in the real world in their lives , from their privileged homes to their life in politics , have a look at roxons , unlike all other bios she will not apart from uni tell u were she went to school !!!!. is it because [a]she does not want to tell u she is a jew , no she admits that and has even a ridiculous attempt at a angle sized name to prove it ,b} or is it because she went to st snots school for girls and does not want you to know what a privileged upbringing she has < well u can bet its b , think about it , how slimy and dishonest is then lieing by omission

    • Hi Peter, that’s what the problem is putting lawyers into the position of attorney general they look after there mates who happen to be lawyers.

      • a respected lawyer i could understand but this dummy i would not think has ever been in front of a court to argue a case . she did very well in school but like most like her in practice they are disasters , i see recently she went off at Anglo american tobacco, their spokesman reminded her it was before the high court and it was improper to comment , i left school at 15 and i know you cannot comment on ongoing court cases , this arrogant dummy does not ,
        their arrogance is beyond human belief , cant we have someone normal , with real experience , who if they are married take their husbands name , a normal woman would say i cant be possibly a attorney general ,i have done some photocopy’s at a law office and got the boss his cup of tea a few times , i could not possible take this job, , but no, her arrogance makes her think she is a god on earth , i used to work at the port kembla steel works as a labourer ,and if some one asked me to take the job as managing director of the steel works i would be shaking in fear and run away , why did she not do the same , cleaning the strip mill floor and the toilets plainly did some good as at least i have a bit more common sense than her and understand the law a little better than her as well

    • Touching the third rail there Peter. Mention the elephant in the room too often and watch the trouble start.

  14. Shane,

    I will rephrase and say that at least you got an acknowledgement. I sent material to the local member (Kate I got whipped Jones) that showed corruption within three government agencies including the Legal Services Commission (noting that gross incompetence is in my opinion corruption, if you cant do your job, piss off and get someone who can!!).

    She didn’t even return calls after the initial chat… NIL!! To a number of drop-ins tens of emails and numerous calls. NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE AT ALL!!

    So you were at least acknowledged.

    I would love to help write questions to ask, ones that if they don’t answer its not just cause they are playing politics (a politician has no obligation to tell a constituent why legislation is formulated…. that is part of representative democracy)….

    However if you ask questions that they have to answer, or that it would be best advised to provide a substantive response then you go somewhere. Mainstream media (and I do understand your disgust with the fourth estate!!) can then get involved.

    I would love to hear more of how and why you started this movement. I am not against you Shane at all!! I just want to make sure we put the sort of pressure against them that they cant wiggle free from…

    Like in the realms of Veteran Affairs, why a firm paid millions each year to represent the DVA was allowed to do work on how to improve the legislation!! DODGY??

    I am yet to find a lawyer from that firm that is compliant with the Model Litigant policy which has the force of law!!!

    Take care.


    • Jeff you are so naive it is beyond belief. You tell a story about Kate Jones as some sort of justification for Nicola Roxon’s failings to answer my questions. Then you say “a politician has no obligation to tell a constituent why legislation is formulated…. that is part of representative democracy”. You have to be kidding again don’t you. You must have a crush on Nicola Roxon.

      • Shane,

        I think you wish to go and have a look at the political history and development of the Westminster system.

        I think you would get a more meaningful response if you looked at what you are entitled to know.

        In Australia we have what is defined as a Representative democracy backed up by responsible government. This is the theory at least.

        The government’s reasons for implementing legislation as you were advised by Mr Owens are set out in the supporting material, Hansard, second reading speeches, the preamble. If you feel that you are entitled to know more than this please provide the legal basis for such claim.

        Sadly we all know that there are backroom deals and side table discussions on the real “why” legislation is introduced. But you really expect someone to disclose that?

        You were told a fair answer, just because it wasn’t spoon fed to you then there isn’t a need to attack me for offering some guidance.

        While Voltaire may have stated ”
        I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”

        One must also consider the wise words of the US politician Hubert Humphrey who stated” .The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.”

      • That’s right no one should take you seriously. You are what’s known as an internet troll. You have come on here to defend Nicola Roxon at all cost which you made clear in your first comment. You are also trying to take the comments off topic.

        You claim to be a lawyer yet it took a layman like me to educate you on the true state of the law in the previous comments in relation to judges and commissioners at Fair Work Australia.So you are not much of a lawyer. And other people who have commented on here have picked that up early.

        You contradict yourself all over the place which I have pointed out previously, as have others. Another example is that you start dribbling on about the separation of powers then later say that all the commissioners and judges at Fair Work Australia are political appoints. So much for your separation of powers.

        If you are as stupid as you make out I feel sorry for your clients if you are really a lawyer. They are getting overcharged as soon as they walk in your office.

        I have spoken to and communicated with a number of government departments over the years and always get a response. And I know numerous others that have as well. And this includes the AG office and/or department. On some government sites they even say that you are entitled to a response. And a staff member in the Prime Minister’s office has even told me this. That is what is meant to keep them accountable.

        You say “please provide the legal basis for such claim”. What for? Based on the previous comments where I have had to educate you on the true state of the law you would not understand it anyhow.

      • Defend Roxon??

        No I think you will find that far from the case. I was merely pointing out that what you received was a response. If you read the material you would find the answer.

        I made an error on the issue of the FWA as it is not my area of law, but also because I just can’t believe that the issue didn’t receive airtime. Potentially any decision made may be ultra vires. That is that they do not have the constitutional authority. Only a judge is entitled to tenure. IF they wish the FWA to have those powers then it is either a court by a different name or it is as stated earlier ultra vires.

        The separation of powers is a doctrine. One of several important premises on which our democratic society operates along with representative democracy and democratic government.

        You got a response. Check a dictionary for a definition on that. You even showed the reply you received. That is termed a response.

        You did not receive the answer you sort, nor could you rightly expect one in the circumstances. On what basis do you assert that you are entitled to get answers to those questions when Abbott himself would not be entitled to that information. It is the right of parliament to legislate…. Not Shane Dowling.

        Your credibility is lacking Shane. Attack me all you want but it will not serve your purpose, nor will ranting about not getting a response from Roxon when clearly Mr Owens responded.

        When I talk of legal doctrines I am not talking about what is going on here, but a doctrine that is the basis of jurisprudential development in a western democracy.

        The FACT is that this is not always adhered to in practice and in Australia this has been more and more the case.

        I am sure that you feel aggrieved but you need to understand the difference between a response and an answer.

      • You say “I made an error on the issue of the FWA as it is not my area of law”. Well I am not even a lawyer and I knew. It is one of the major legal institutions in the country and every lawyer would know that whether it is their area of law or not. Except you apparently. Your excuse is a joke. You are the one who has a lack of credibility.

      • Shane,

        the FWA is an ALP joke that will not last the next election. To say it is a major legal institution shows that you are not conversant with the terms.

        It has little standing. It is not a jurisdiction that I deal with nor wish to deal with. Clearly as you are aggrieved over your issues you made yourself familiar with it.

        I don’t need to deal with it.

        My current focus is slightly larger than where you are at, so be happy that you are doing what you can.

        You still cannot state under what law you can claim this information.

        FOI/RTI will not help.

        Read the material suggested. Get an adult to explain the big words and you may find the answers. But if you expect a member of parliament to tell you the core reasons, including internal discussions and policies as to why a piece of legislation was put fwd, then you are as deluded as your posts have made you.

        I thought this was a site to put forward credible viewpoints on ensuring judicial and political integrity, it now seems that you are not aiming to do that but that you just wish to whine about how unfair it is that someone who was fairly elected to parliament and placed with full authority under our legal system into her current role, and then complain because you didn’t get someone to waste hours of taxpayers money explaining to you what you should be able to obtain by looking at the material that Mr Owens took time out to advise you to read. He does not have to provide you with links as much as Roxon does not have to provide the details you want

      • Once again you are lying and distorting the facts in your comments. You are wasting this sites time so move on.

        As I said in my post and have said in the comments I have read the material and have not found the answers to my questions. So why do you keep on telling me to read the material when I have. Like I said you are a troll and fraudster claiming to be a lawyer on here to defend Mrs Roxon.

        You say “But if you expect a member of parliament to tell you the core reasons, including internal discussions and policies as to why a piece of legislation was put fwd, then you are as deluded as your posts have made you.”

        The politicians should tell the whole country the core reasons for their legislation. The fact that you do not understand that shows what an idiot you are. But the reality is you do understand that because once again you are an internet troll and fraudster claiming to be a lawyer on here to defend Mrs Roxon.

        Time for you to move on and troll somewhere else. You have taken up enough space on this post.

  15. @Peter…. I think you will find there are a large number of solicitors who have not run a major trial. Generally because it is the Barrister who argues the case in court in almost all matters. Sorry to be factual in your realm of fantasy.

    I am no fan of Roxon and I think she is yet another plant for the unions. However she was by the information I have seen a Senior Associate at Maurice Blackburn. The partners there are not simpletons. They are very savvy lawyers and businessman. Sure she may not be much chop as A-G, sure you may dislike her for many reasons, but I wouldn’t suggest that she was a photocopy clerk.

    Facts are amazing things in an argument.

    • well i think from memory and please correct me , she had a real job for about 12 months if you had a business would you make someone who was a schoolgirl a senior partner with no experience and was born yesterday , there plenty of what i believe are called non practising solicitors around now , this is some one who is near unemployable and is working at Woolworth stealing my job and , to cover the amount of money they have stolen from their parents and the taxpayer call them selves this to feel better
      i will give them that they are not attorney general , she could have done the best photocopy’s ever at this office but it does not make he suitable for attorney general .
      i don’t know what you do Jeff but i am sure you do not bring in schoolgirls to start at the top at what ever it is

    • ps , the only plant she could be is for a local high school . or girls club at the uni , as she has no experience to even be a plant for anything , thats the point i am trying to make

  16. She was a judge’s associate to a high court judge. This would have given her a solid grounding as a young lawyer in a vast area of law. not withstanding the huge life lessons that Mary Gaudron would have passed on. This was for a couple of years.

    She then was a union lorganiser

    She was then an industrial lawyer at Maurice Blackburn…. so she was a solicitor for 5 years before taking the position at MB. A senior associate is not a Senior Partner, they are far from it. Generally in larger firms an associate is a 2-3 year lawyer.. a senior assoc 4-6 and on.

    I am not commenting on her ability to do the A-G job, it could be that she is the best the ALP has got (sad as that sounds they are light on for talent really!!…)

    As for me, I am a lawyer, I know the firm she worked with and the partners here in Qld.

    I am currently undertaking two masters degrees, one in law the other in politics/policy. So yeah I have a clue… I probably have the same amount of legal experience as she did just in a different area.

    I would be more concerned about the merits of the treasurer…

    • You mention the former high court judges Mary Gaudron. She is a well-known Labor girl and crook and was a good friend of that other high court judge who should have gone to jail, Lionel Murphy. Corrupt as they come. So I am sure you are right and Nicola Roxon would have learnt plenty from her. Here is a good article on Mrs Gaudron –

      Your right in what you previously said Jeff “Facts are amazing things in an argument”

      And as I previosly pointed out in relation to your knowledge of the law I would not be bragging about your law degree.

      • You quote from “justinian” another blog style article. Do you wish to refer to a properly referred source or is it just extras from Deliverance that you obtain material from.

      • Justinian is run by Richard Ackland who is a lawyer and this is what it says about him on the SMH website “Richard Ackland publishes the law journals Justinian and the Gazette of Law and Journalism. He writes a regular column on legal affairs, law and society and the media. He has been a journalist with The Australian Financial Review and a presenter of ABC TV’s Media Watch and Radio National’s Late Night Live and Breakfast programs.”

        If you were a lawyer as you claim you would have known that as Mr Ackland and his website is extremely well known in the legal fraternity. But you did not.

        He is well credentialed. You are just a faceless internet troll claiming to be a lawyer but with no clue of the law.

      • One man’s view on the quality of a High Court Judge… gee awesome. It is a blog. He is the publisher and can then place what he wants subject to a number of laws, on his site.

        It does not make it well credentialed does it?

        How does this opinion make it fact?

        Some of her decisions (and even Murphy’s too) on important issues such as Native Title changed the legal landscape for some of the most underprivileged Australians. A good use of judicial activism and a solid argument for the separation of powers doctrine. Wow your won argument used against you. Got to hurt, but you would need a spine to carry the nerve cords to allow pain receptors to trigger further down.

        Off course as is seen in your pointless, and legally unsound arguments and complaints against me and the A-G you don’t have a spine, just a bad attitude, a bit of bush law and an internet subscription…

        Which cell block are you in?

      • Richard Ackland is held in high esteem by many and people know who he is. What we should put more credibility in an anonymous dipstick like you who does not know the law.

        You say “Wow your won argument used against you.” What argument. You make things up and put words in my mouth.

        You’re the one who should be in jail. You can dish it out but cannot take it.

  17. well , if you told me she had 20 years experience, i would worry she had the talent to be a-general, 5 years its a matter that should be investigated by the police , and jeff some advice for you , don’t tell any one you have a degree or are doing one , my 12 years old Labrador dog as several now as well , 38 percent of staff at supermarkets also have them.
    your only plus is that you are a male and only 50 or 60 males in Australia have a degree, properly as they knocked down the male toilets at the uni s to make room for more female classes , its pointless doing one as we never get time having to do a job that pays decent money to support the millions of unemployable low wage females with degrees and of course egos. its now unpleasant to even be served at the post-office by someone with 3 degrees bitter and angry at the world that their greatness and education is not recognized , im thinking of starting a uni course with myself as tutor
    it will be a half hour lesson
    first i tell them the fact , that every great person who every lived has one thing in common”” that is they never had a education ” of course as they don’t know anything they wont believe me and will wander off to get a degree and a low paid job , the attractive ones hang around the non arts faculties and get a doctor , engineer or someone with good prospects and leave and the unattractive obese ones ( no names here ) will continue and become woollies deputy manager or attorney general or state premiers

    • I just worked out your issue after re-reading.

      Its not that she isn’t professionally qualified, you note that even with 20 years you think SHE would not be.

      Its that you are a misogynistic little man. Did mummy not love you enough.

      I think your rant is clearly sexist and offensively so.

      Give it a rest.

      • Your comment says a lot about your mental state. Nowhere in the post do I criticise Nicola Roxon for being a women. The fact is most of the people whose corrupt conduct I write about on this site are males.
        I have been a lot harsher on the former AG Robert McClelland. What am I sexist for putting the boot into him.
        Your comment shows that you have the brain the size of a peanut.

      • yes with 40 years she would be ok . 5 years is a joke for this position
        ill ignore the statement regards my mother , its disgusting and i don’t deserve it , but i know when you talk about the sacred cow of education with the educated they become vicious and start swearing and yelling ,
        i am 6 foot tall so little does not come into it ,anything as for misogynistic , i have to say about women i would say to their face . its up to them to answer ,i certainly prefer women to someone like you
        i am not a labour party supporter so i will say sexist and racist things all day long if i want , anyone can refute me if they like , i see what i see in life , because a school teacher told you that man and woman are exactly the same apart from one wears dresses might not be true , we live in a society where the majority of people take the easy path of parroting what the tv and left wing schoolteachers tell them to say , just like you , im the wrong one to try and shut up by yelling sexist and racist because i like and enjoy being called those titals

  18. Peter,

    Are you bitter that you didn’t finish your studies.

    1. I actually have three degrees the two masters will make it 5. I paid for the things, and worked the whole way through. I used to represent soldiers and help them not get screwed by the system, so to answer the next question you were going to ask, I am not one of these leech type of lawyers getting rich on others sorrow and misery.

    2. Did you now that 76.3 % of all statistics are made up… Should I explain the joke. I think you will find that your little stat is a tad off. If you go to the ABS website (not the one for your 4wd parts either) you will find that 23% of males 25-64 actually have a degree.

    3.I would love to know who and on what basis you state that the greatest people never had an education. Gandhi, Lawyer; Mandela, Lawyer; Curie, Einstein, Max Planck, Heisenberg, Biko, Livingston, Darwin,

    And of course the man of the 20th century went to Harrow and then Sandhurst.

    Gee you must be a cleaner because they were some sweeping statements.

    Better go wash your neck, its looking a little red.

    • Jeff: your pompous and patronising attitude and those of many in the legal profession was the reason for my completing a law degree, albeit later in life. It is surprising the large numbers of mature age students at law school; many of whom just want the knowledge after experience of the courts and legal profession. Each time I line up at the ballot box (behind the wide variety of people who have posted on this Blog) I am never asked what my qualifications are to vote – rich or poor, educated or uneducated, we each have an equal vote … and Jeff, a condescending attitude of making snide remarks (to Peter) about cleaners or rednecks does not assist you at all as they may well end up as people you have to represent.

    • no im not bitter i never liked school and i have stated i left school at 15 . even told you i cleaned the floor and toilets , so i would hardly be bitter , happy to do it tomorrow as well . work is good ,
      as for me thinking u are a wealthy lawyer u misjudge me , i can see by a couple of comments you made that you are a battler doing legal aid jobs and living with 2 others in a gold coats bed sit , the fact you mention your degrees and school life is a indication nothing has happened in your life much since school has it
      note all the people you mentioned , none are Australians which is strange , plenty of smart men and women in our country , Einstein is a fraud ,copied his ideas from others , was a media production , liviningston is famous not great , Mandela is a terrorist convicted and spent most of his life in prison for same and admitted his guilt , biko . surly u don’t mean the obscure sth African trade union leader who fell out a window at a police station ??/ u must be as left wing as they come to even remember him ,, have no idea who the man of the 20th century is???? , sandhurst is a military college not a uni jeff
      and as for red neck its a american expression , i think it means someone whose neck is burnt by the sun from outdoor work . im not sure what you mean by it in regards to me , i can see by this american expression and your chose of great people that you are not much of a Australian preferring to live in a american tv limbo land and the sweeping statements comments . hell jeff that’s the worse joke i ever heard
      ps as for your woman hater comments i notice only one woman made your list , of greats , i can think of 50 off the top of my head all of whom never went to school

  19. I think this sums it up: “Welcome to the British system of justice now operative throughout the English speaking world. Jesus guilty, and the robbers innocent. It doesn’t seem much of an improvement, but as our Lawyers and Judges check their bank balances they claim that the British system is the best there’s ever been.

    “Perjury is such a routine event in courts that even prosecution lawyers now accept without question the situation where a defendant who has tried to do a plea bargain gets turned down and subsequently goes into the witness box and lies his head off even though earlier on he was prepared [following full legal advice] to admit that he did it. Our system is sick.” Brett Dawson, the author of “The Evil Deeds of the Ratbag Profession”

  20. It is a pity that so many on this site have dropped the ball and reverted to personal aggrandisement and destructive criticism and sarcasm.

    Kangaroo court can be a great vehicle for public awareness as long as it sticks to facts and not opinions. The differentiation is up to Shane. You needen’t defend yourself as long as you remain impersonal towards your readers. Ignore your detractors’ comments and put the facts together from the others’. Doesn;t matter what degrees are involved or how many, because they have no standing in life without supporting experience.

    Lawyers degrees only show the public they have read up on written legislation. They do not signify any particular skills that fit them to be legislation writers. They depend on as much legislation as they can read up on to keep them in work. Anyone who can read and remember can do it but in a closed shop situation can’t put on the grey wig.

    In every court action there are always at least three lawyers involved. One on either side of the third, the judge. At the end all will be paid for their ‘services’ even tho’ one will have ‘won’, one will have ‘lost’ and the third couldn’t care less becuse if it was all a wasted effort an appeal will be mounted to fix his errors and another threesome will get more work. But throughout, it is experience and political patronage that is paramount not the number of degrees taken.

  21. Sometimes shilling or trolling takes the form of appearing overtly helpful while in reality directing the conversation in new directions, sometimes away from where it should remain. I’m seeing more than a bit of that in this thread.

    • Paul, I think you are right. I must be incredibly niave, reading the posts in the last day or so, I think there is a high level diversion tactic going on. Seemed credible initially. Maybe it’s just a Govt employee with fancy bits of paper but little life experience? Nicola Roxon is meant to serve the public. There is no way that the staffer did not speak to Roxon direct on the questions, I am sure it would be on her instructions that there is the fob off to the questions. These are reasonable questions that have been asked of her department. Even more so at the moment because the Australian public are very concerned about the Government’s trustworthiness. Just take a look at how the Prime Minister’s office ducked and dived when questioned by Michael Smith of 2UE. Where did that go? Nowhere. Nicola Roxon should be forced to answer the questions asked.

  22. Shane was right to seek further information from Nicola Roxon regarding the motivation behind the proposed legislation. Have there been large numbers of complaints? Reading the Explanatory Memoranda or Ms Roxon’s Second Reading (14 March) does not shed much light – if everything is going so well with the judiciary, why introduce the legislation? In any case the complaints have to be “very serious”.
    Keep on poking, probing and stratching around Shane – McClelland was not moved out of the position without good reason – he put some very inexperienced and young judges into the Federal Court.
    More info on Senate Committee here:
    Senate Committee
    “Please note that the terms of reference for this inquiry are the provisions of the bills. The committee has decided that it will not be accepting, publishing, considering or examining any material that relates to personal cases or grievances. Any such material will be rejected by the committee as irrelevant to its inquiry.
    Submissions should be received by 27 April 2012. The reporting date is 18 June 2012.”

  23. I now have a response to my questions from the Attorney-General’s Department which was emailed to me at 11.38am today. I will deal with that in the next post on this matter which should be the next post or the one after in the next week or so.

    I think the people who have supported in the comment section of this post should take some credit. So thanks.

  24. This thread has been very interesting as an example of trolling at its more subtle, unlike our clumsy corrector, the now absent Mr Molloy a few threads back. The “concern” trolls are far more insidious because they play the voice of sweet reason, who only want to help but just need to point out a few helpful things because they are concerned that you don’t quite understand etc etc, which of course is how they redirect the discussion. What this level of trolling means is that KCoA has arrived well and truly.

  25. Thank you Big Bad Property Developer April 2, 2012 at 4:20 pm # . Though I had’t checked since my post, I will contnue to post and I can assure you I am dedicated to exposing the truth in our legal system, unlike someone else who, after a promising start soon exposed himself as a troll who overall contributed little more than an unwelcome and very undignified distraction from the main game.

    First timers to Shane’s site must wonder why he isn’t facing horrendous litigation but having personally been through a major investigation on behalf of someone else and been threatened with defamation proceedings by lawyers in an effort to conceal their crimes, I realised the reason he wasn’t being sued off the face of the earth was that like me, he had the truth. If anyone has any trepidation about Shane’s motives, it should be removed by this accolade: “At the request of the National Library of Australia and in recognition of this sites value for future generations and research this site is now archived on a regular basis”.

    All Shane’s questions to Nicola Roxon are reasonable and deserving of answers but in the light of the FWA Craig Thomson investigation debacle, the last one is of increasing significance. “4. Why has Fair Work Australia been exempt from the new laws given they have judicial officers (judges and commissioners).”

    There is a very disturbing widespread pattern emerging which in many ways can be traced back to Shane’s February article “Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s criminal history and her hypocrisy with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.”

    I am currently investigating a lot of linked events and a very clear devastatingly corrupt picture is emerging which should be of concern not only to every genuine trusting Union member but to the whole Australian public.

    You’ll notice every Labour Minister is parrotting the P.M’s spin-doctors mantra – It’s in the hands of the “INDEPENDENT” Fair Work Australia! The Labor Government set up Fair Work Australia and Julia Gillard was the architect. Fair Work Australia website states: How are Fair Work Australia members appointed? FWA members are appointed by the Governor-General of Australia on the recommendation of the Australian Government of the day.

    “Latest appointment to fair work australia swells union ranks within the tribunal”.

    “While AMMA in no way seeks to undermine the professionalism and capability of those the Rudd Government has appointed to FWA, their backgrounds do reflect a particularly partisan approach, despite the Government’s earlier promises this would not be the case.

    “I will not be Prime Minister of this country and appoint some to staff the key positions in this body,” then- Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd told The 7.30 Report back in April 2007. “I will not stand by and have this body become the agency of ex-trade union officials. People will be appointed on their merit.”

    Then-Deputy Opposition Leader Julia Gillard made similar promises in a May 2007 National Press Club address: “Our new industrial umpire will be independent of unions, business and government. It will definitely not be a return to the old industrial relations club. Appointments will not favour one side over the other. Labor will remove all perceptions of bias.”

    AMMA Chief Executive Steve Knott has called on the Deputy Prime Minister to stop her partisan appointment process to Fair Work Australia and ensure future appointments to the tribunal reflect a balanced approach. “It belies belief that no private sector business appointments, with practical experience in running a business, have been represented in the Deputy Prime Minister’s FWA appointments,” Mr Knott said. “This is particularly so given the increased powers of FWA can have such a profound impact on the Australian industry and the economy.

    “The Deputy Prime Minister can’t hide behind a short list process handed to her by public servants as the reason for these decisions, as such appointments rightly rest with the Minister. “Clearly the Deputy Prime Minister is not engaging in meaningful discussions with other stakeholders, such as promised consultation with the Shadow Industrial Relations Minister.”

    The partisan appointment process may also reflect the Deputy Prime Minister’s differing view from that of Kevin Rudd, or a change in position from the Prime Minister, as the appointment of an endless tribe of trade union officials or ex-trade union officials continues.”

    (Edited: the link did not work)

    By the way Shane, I am a “he”. Feel free to edit or modify this post as you see fit. It may also pay to check whether your site is being sabotaged. Your” here” link from the above-mentioned Gillard article after “I also do notice that the Australian Mines and Metals Association has documented Julia Gillard stacking the bench at Fair Work Australia with her union mates” now takes people to a rather unexpected site!

    Keep up the great work as your and the Jo Nova site are rapidly becoming the last bastions of free speech and debate in Australia.

  26. In China trolls are called 50 cent’ers as thats what their paid on each trolling comment. They are cowards and a enemy to free speech!

    FWA is a joke!

    • The Israelis of course have made trolling forums into a National pass-time with their “Megaphone” project. It exists at the level of Government in most countries (if not all) however. US political Parties hire Public Relations firms to manage their trolling needs. Remember those “make money while surfing the Net” ads? Its a reality on any site that builds a following that it will be trolled, sometimes overtly and sometimes more subtly.

      • Well Paul, I am definitely naive. It never occurred to me that someone would waste time interacting with others just to try to take them off subject. Oh, wait a moment, that would be downright sinister if they were on the Govt payroll? Maybe I need to put a tinfoil hat on so this communist government can’t read my brainwaves?

      • OK BB I’ll rephrase that. It exists at the level of Party politics, defending Government agendas, (or advancing Opposing agendas), but kept at arm’s length from Government itself. Watch a few forums and you’ll see it in action. Basically, its akin to advertising, just in a different form to what we usually know. Its still the subtle selling of a brand. Like product placement but with opinions instead of cars or cereal.

        tinfoil hat….sheesh…

  27. “4. Why has Fair Work Australia been exempt from the new laws given they have judicial officers (judges and commissioners)”

    Keep up the good work, but this last point stuck to me. I am not a lawyer but is this in preparation to protect FWA when complaints come through regarding FWA and the Craig Thomson fiasco.

  28. While Nicola Roxon has appeared to be one of the most competent and consistent members of the ministry, the quality of legislation coming from her department does little to maintain that image. If she is the best that the ALP can put forward, perhaps they need to go back to basics and get someone like Kim Beasley to set the party up for the future. There aren’t many in the current government team that will ever reach the standards set by Kim.

    • its not very fair , nicola has been to school longer than anyone else in Australia , its just real life she has trouble with , can you tell us about your marks at uni again nicole ,
      have a look at her bio on her web site , she went to primary and high school in Sydney but no further details , would it be because you went to a school for the richest people in Sydney nicola and it looks bad to your blue collar supporters , who as a matter of fact vote liberals anyway,, i feel sorry for her due the ridiculous attempt at alglelsizing her last name but even her first name is a invention , nicole is the one for normal girls ,, even before she was a day old it was attention seeking , i have 5 degrees , i went to school i got more phantom good marks than the other kiddies . problem is ive done nothing since

  29. I know this has been almost 6 months since you put up this post Shane, but I would like to say something about Nicola roxon. Roxon is a complete grub who has absolutely no idea in her position as attorney-general and her idea to put bills to deal with bad judges and bad judicial officers are just a vote grabbing ploy, smokescreen type. I agree with you Shane, we need an independent commission to deal with the bad judges and bad judicial officers. Roxon is bad news and is a shocking attorney-general/politician. Roxon was definitely playing games on you Shane when you contacted her office about this matter.

  30. Shane. disregard the drongos that disagree with your unenviable task of bringing some sanity to this unholy dogs breakfast of governance.Take Bill “I dont know what she said but I agree anyway” Shorten. Nicola “give us some money Mr.Benson and Hedges” Roxon, Juliar “I was young and Niaeve ” Gillard, Wayne “I get my inspiration from Bruce springstien” Swan, Craig “Whyella on my TV” Emmerson Richard”Howard didn’t stop the boats” Dennis, and Bob Carr he doesn’t say a lot, no-one listens to him anyway. You have them all scared, but I wouldn’t like to jump over their collective pensions unless I was Steve Hooker. If they all got what they deserved they would be sharing my state pension. I shall continue to wear my “T” Shirt with pride. good luck Shane. Allan Myalup WA.

Leave a Reply