Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

RiotACT seeks legal advice – tell us what you think?

By johnboy - 12 December 2007 60

It’s nice to know that with everything going on his life, including being flung out of the Assembly Liberals to a lonely existence on the cross benches, Richard Mulcahy has time to keep an eye on RiotACT.

To the point where his staff had time to threaten us with dire consequences for quoting the text on the AIRC’s website.

It started with this email:

Please see attached order from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

In order to comply with the order of the Commission, please remove the below post.
Any subsequent posts attempting to publish transcripts from this matter should not be allowed to appear on the RiotAct.

Yours sincerely

Robert Ayling
Senior Adviser to Richard J Mulcahy MLA
Member for Molonglo

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory
Civic Square, London Circuit (GPO Box 1020)
PH: (02) 6205 0111
FAX: (02) 6205 3002

You should scan this message and any attached files for viruses. The author accepts no liability for any loss caused either directly or indirectly by a virus arising from the use of this message or any attached file. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then you should not disseminate, distribute or reproduce this email. If you have received this message in error, can you please notify the author immediately and delete the original message.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.


I can not see what all the fuss is about:

Australian Industrial Relations Commission

Case: 2006/76
s.278(1) RAO Schedule – Commission to be advised of breaches of Part or rules Application/Notification by Australian Hotels Association-New South Wales Branch


15 November 2007
09 October 2007
18 September 2007
23 November 2006

Comment by sallyann60 — 12 December, 2007 @ 10:29 am

The attachment he’s referring to can be found here.

I had some problems with this and answered thusly:

From: John Griffiths []
Sent: Wednesday, 12 December 2007 1:30 PM
To: Ayling, Robert
Subject: Re: Post on thread ‘So it goes.

I’m sorry Robert but I’m struggling to see how that order prohibits quoting from the AIRC website.

Which got me this reply:

Thank you for your response.

Suggest that you take legal advice on publication.

This exchange is coloured by a history of wild threats by Richard when he wants to silence comment he finds inconvenient.

So RA legal eagles… Surely if the AIRC has left it on it’s website we’re hardly in contempt to quote it?

What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
60 Responses to
RiotACT seeks legal advice – tell us what you think?
Cameron 10:56 pm 12 Dec 07

You know JB, I would suggest that RA is more at risk (a not at all significant risk, just more of one) as a result of publishing the email from this Robert Ayling character (unfortunately, my quick Google search only tells me he shares a name with a prominent pom businessman and that he is – or probably now was the Woden branch secretary of the libs) when the email quite clearly identifies it as confidential.

But then again, Mr Ayling would have a few hoops to jump through to make that happen.

ant 10:53 pm 12 Dec 07

Scientologist Effect, more like. Tried and true tactics for them.

johnboy 10:51 pm 12 Dec 07

Hmmm “Streisand effect”, a new term for good old fashioned craphouse media relations.

grundy 10:48 pm 12 Dec 07

Here comes the ‘Streisand effect’!

Neocom 10:45 pm 12 Dec 07

Have you contacted the AIRC to ask if they consider your actions in contravention of the order?

It appears to me you are not breaking any laws by posting a link to something that is clearly on the public record.

Perhaps you could seek advice from a site like Crikey?

Cameron 10:41 pm 12 Dec 07

Oh, and hi to Jessica Wright and the other ‘journalists’ at the CT who are no doubt going to be using this (without attribution) for their ‘opinion piece’ in tomorrow’s ‘news’paper.

johnboy 10:38 pm 12 Dec 07

The thing I find most disturbing is to think what environments Richard came through which reward this sort of bullying.

mojo filter 10:38 pm 12 Dec 07

The AIRC order looks clear to me. It says: “Thou shalt not poblish the TRANSCRIPT of proceedings.”

But that doesn’t prevent anyone from referring to the case or referring to the transcripts. Given that the AIRS has now pulled them off its website it would be very difficult to publish them anyway.

I suggest you write back to Mr Ayling and say that you have taken legal advice and it suggests he take legal advice about his legal advice

Vic Bitterman 10:30 pm 12 Dec 07


Ignore it. Pathetic really.

Cameron 10:29 pm 12 Dec 07

I doubt that Mulcahy could challenge the existence of that very limited information on RA when it already exists on the internet (and will forever anyway).

He could possibly challenge the fact that it is on the internet at all, but then he’d be taking on the AIRC and internet caches everywhere.

Let the AIRC ask you to remove it. Then we can just replace it with a link to the information on the AIRC website anyway.

It occurs to me VNBerlinaV8 that the more mentions we get in here (in contextual relevance) regarding the alleged corrupt behaviour of Richard Mulcahy, the higher the pagerank this page will likely receive when people search for it.

Merry Christmas, Dick.

johnboy 10:24 pm 12 Dec 07

No question, if the AIRC wanted a takedown we’d jump to it.

Deadmandrinking 10:21 pm 12 Dec 07

I don’t know much about the internet legal jungle, but I have seen bits on and other sites of that ilk where website owners have demanded that links to areas of their sites be taken down.

But I assume that would warrant an email from the AIRC itself, not Richard Mulcahy. He’s in the bloody opposition anyway, it’s not like he works for them.

el ......VNBerlinaV8 10:03 pm 12 Dec 07

(Hi Google!)

el ......VNBerlinaV8 10:03 pm 12 Dec 07

Oh, I get it – they want it removed because it’s a document relating to the alleged corrupt behaviour of Richard Mulcahy.

el ......VNBerlinaV8 10:01 pm 12 Dec 07

So RA legal eagles… Surely if the AIRC has left it on it’s website we’re hardly in contempt to quote it?

I can’t figure out what the fuss is all about, either. Do we assume that:

The AIRC received a similar threat?

Or, that it’s just attempted (and likely to fail) bullying over something that no-one is really likely to have that much interest in in the first place?

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site