The first segment of the public inquiry into asbestos management at council will be reopened after shock jock Ray Hadley claimed that council staff and others lied in giving evidence.
Richard Beasley, SC, said in a statement he could not ignore Mr Hadley's allegations.
"Those allegations include that the council, certain named members of its staff, as well as other unnamed persons, had misled the commissioner. Mr Hadley alleged that some (or perhaps all) of the commissioner's findings in his interim report concerning a former employee of the council were based on a 'lie'.
"Given the serious nature of these issues, and the fact that evidence was given under oath, a claim made publicly that the commissioner was misled or lied to cannot be ignored," he said.
Mr Beasley has asked Mr Hadley and 2GB to produce the documents or any other evidence to back up the claims.
He has also called for anyone else who might have any evidence that he was misled or lied to to produce it.
He has reminded any would-be witnesses that evidence may be given in private and non-publication orders made if necessary.
Mr Beasley heard evidence over three days in April on one part of his inquiry, looking at whether the appointment of two investigators - one to examine asbestos issues and the other to canvas allegations over the appointment of Mark Mulligan as a safety consultant at council - was proper.
He also examined whether the asbestos investigator, Michael Tooma, had a conflict of interest because of his friendship with Mr Mulligan.
He found the investigator employed by council to look into asbestos mismanagement had no conflict of interest and allegations of impropriety made by radio shock jock Ray Hadley over the issue were wrong.
Mr Hadley hit back on air last Thursday, saying: "It's clear the council, and I'll be kind here, has simply misled the commissioner. I could say they have told a bald-faced lie but I will use the other term and say they misled the commissioner."
He said council staff denied that Mr Mulligan had been involved in asbestos management at council. But Mr Hadley asserted the staff were wrong.
"It's an absolute disgrace that the general manager of council and [a named staff member] have misled the commissioner, in my opinion, because his findings heavily rely on the fact that Mulligan had nothing to do with asbestos which is just a lie.
"I completely rejected any assertion that all of my statements are factually incorrect or inaccurate and if anyone wants proof I am more than happy to give it, including to you, Mr Beasley, because I'm afraid, as wise as you may be, you have been lied to, in my opinion, by people within the council."
Mr Hadley has now been invited to show the proof.
This stage of the public inquiry, into one single term of reference, all arose out of more allegations made by Mr Hadley in February last year.
It also led the local government minister to issue a notice to suspend council, which council fought in the courts. It won initially but was then overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Despite that legal victory, the minister did not take any further action on the suspension threat.
Council has also foreshadowed suing Mr Hadley for defamation over his claims.
The mayor, Mark Greenhill, said of Mr Beasley's decision to reopen: "In the circumstances, I believe the commissioner's actions are entirely appropriate."
