With all that has been going inside the HSU hearings of the Trade Union Royal Commission and the bizarre antics outside the Commission during doorstop interviews, one voice has been missing.
Both Independent Australia and Wixxyleaks have been receiving a lot of queries around Craig Thomson and what his attitude towards the unfolding events at the Royal Commission may be.
I thought rather than assume anything it may be best to have a conversation with him and ask him to give us his thoughts.
The name Craig Thomson is usually the first name that comes to mind when someone refers to the HSU despite the allegations against him being tiny in comparison to the allegations against others. However given that he is awaiting his appeal by a Magistrate for his earlier convictions related to his spending of HSU members funds, his voice has not been heard for a while .
In particular I wanted to ask him about his treatment by the media and how he thinks that may have influenced his legal matters.
A key part of that is Thomsons address to parliament, which can be viewed in full on the HSU Resource Page on Wixxyleaks.
At the time this address was mocked by the mainstream media, and the impact of this level of media barrage on Thomson and his family was of grave concern to many media commentators.
At the time of course Kathy Jackson was the darling of the press, and the adopted daughter of the Coalition with everybody showering her with praise.
Now with the benefit of hindsight it seems that Thomson was actually rather lenient towards her in his address and others he also mentioned as being connected.
Kathy Jackson is no longer the darling of the press, it is fair to say that the press appear to be rather livid at her for stringing them along for years and the Coalition can’t seem to find enough distance from her. Kathy’s partner Michael Lawler is being shown to be becoming even more involved with HSU affairs even trying to legally represent Kathy against the HSU. Marco Bolano has been reported by several people to the police for trying to physically intimidate them during the Royal Commission, and joining Jackson in attempts to try and implicate a respected journalist with hookers, an act they said was a ludicrous suggestion when Thomson claimed they had threatened to set him up with hookers.
I also wanted to ask him about his views on his treatment by media. During his parliamentary address he made mention of the media and memorably pointed towards them during his address accusing them of unfairly targeting him, his family and his staff.
Thomson gestures towards the media during his address
After his speech the Herald Sun published the infamous front page with Thomson with the big nose and the “We don’t believe you” headline. Not long after the Herald Sun was forced to publish a kind of excuse or insincere apology by the Australian Press Council for its highly prejudicial coverage.
With all of the evidence of millions of dollars being rorted from the unions membership, I thought perhaps it was a good time to have a chat with the man who tried to introduce some financial governance measures into the union all those years ago.
With that in mind I contacted Thomson and he agreed to meet up for a cappuccino and a chat at the Red Heart Café near my place.
I hope the interview answers some of our readers queries.
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
For All Your Video Production Needs
After the long ordeal Craig has gone through, I hope he’s as relaxed (and sane) as he appears. Just hoping that he is vindicated in the end and all of the guilty get what they deserve.
It speaks volumes for the courage and conviction of Craig Thomson that he can continue to function and maintain his smile, given what he, and his family, has had to endure. I have the highest level of admiration for him and sincerely hope he is successful in his appeal for these trumped up findings. I’m confident that with the passage of time and the inevitable disclosure of what really took place, he will be exonerated and his standing will be reinstated in the community. You have done a marvellous job of investigative journalism Peter and to be congratulated for being the one person who didn’t let go and walk away from this gross abuse of justice. Craig must be pleased to have you in his corner fighting the good fight.
Regardless of the outcome for Craig Thomson, there seems little doubt that the evidence against Kathy Jackson will see her charged with a major fraud. The only question remains whether she will also be charged with receiving a secret commission from Peter Mac, and the implications for the players there, including Dr Hillis, Dr Wellington, and especially Mr Cook whose HR company SIAG appears to have presided over the pay debacle, and then been commissioned to fix it. With potentially the most to lose if a suit by Peter Mac against SIAG eventuated, he also benefitted the most, since he avoided this exposure, and had Peter Mac pay the “settlement” to HSU#3 apparently against DHS advice. Re-reading the sworn testimony and documents on the TURC site add to the confusion about who amongst the PM players knew what, what was divulged to the hapless researchers (if anything) or to the Peter Mac board. Everyone seems to have a different story. It is hard to see that this issue will go away any time soon.
It’s good to read this latest from you on Craig Thomson, Peter! And to watch the interview with him.
I guess his apparent sanity after all he’s been through is the result of a clear conscience and his now seemingly being vindicated. I’m glad I believed him back then! I found your reportage very helpful throughout
http://polliepomes.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/yes-i-do-believe-him-but-have-doubts-about-her/
I believed him, thought what he said was true.
His story’s unchanged. He’s said nothing new.
But the lady protests so oft, methinks,
Increasingly the air around her stinks.
Her stories change and are embellished
In many interviews, each one relished
By her audience, the peoples’ jury!
So why is he the focus of her fury?
What did he do to deserve this hell,
The unhappy member for Dobell,
When her entitlements have swollen
To far outweigh the sum she claims he’s stolen?
Isn’t it time we really got to know her,
This ‘heroine’, this ‘whistleblower’?
Who are her friends, lovers, connections?
Why for her so much media protection?
Why do editors find it so very hard
To spot an extra ‘p’ on a phony credit card?
If investigative journos checked out his alibis
Couldn’t they prove which of them is telling lies?
Wonderful interview Peter.I have been watching your work on this from the beginning.I have always believed what you have stated about this. I hope he gets justice soon.
As others have already stated – I too have watched this disgraceful saga unfold from the beginning and, thanks to Peter, never wavered in my belief that this whole sorry story was a set up. I am firmly of the belief that Abbott knew the truth of the set up and I await the the day of his reckoning not only with Craig’s situation but also with that of Peter Slipper. Will it only be history that will also tell the story of how he ‘shafted’ Pauline Hanson, Daved Ettridge and One Nation?
Craig, you must have great inner strength to have withstood the media firestorm that engulfed you and remain so sane.
I remember trying to talk for former AD leader Sandra Kanck about this and the Slipper story and the ramifications for our democracy and she didn’t get it.
She does now. Two vicious attacks orchestrated by Abetz, Abbott, Brough, Brandis and Pyne to change the elected government of the day.
Duchy – I think you have hit on a very significant issue here as far as the $250,000 Peter Mac money is concerned. An issue that, so far, has not received the prominence it deserves. I refer, of course, to the role of Brian Cook, the Managing Director of Service Industry Advisory Group Pty Ltd (SlAG).
As the former Chair of PMCI, Dr Heather Wellington, explained in her recent statement to the Royal Commission, PMCI used to be part of the Inner and Eastern Health Care Network. SIAG was the outsourced human resources management consultancy group for Inner and Eastern Health Care Network. In July 2000, PMCI was reconstituted as a stand-alone health service with its own Board of Directors. Dr David Hillis was appointed as Chief Executive Officer, Dr Heather Wellington was appointed Chair, and the consultancy arrangement with SIAG continued.
The consultancy arrangement between PMCI and SIAG was such that several SIAG employees were seconded to PMCI. One such employee was Ms Christina Wilson who took on a very senior management role within PMCI. Indeed, the PMCI Annual Reports for 2002, 2003 and 2004 list Ms Wilson as being the PMCI Human Resources Director. Nonetheless, it has to be remembered that Christina Wilson always was an employee of SIAG while discharging her PMCI duties.
In his recent testimony to the Royal Commission, Dr Hillis explained that the $3.16 million underpayment of wages to PMCI Research staff had its genesis in the Hospital becoming a stand-alone entity. Prior to the change, Research staff had been paid according to remuneration schedules established by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC). When PMCI became a separate entity, all staff (including Research staff) were subject to coverage by HSUA#3. And the Award that the Union had negotiated for its members contained rates of pay substantially more than those of required by the NH&MRC. The trouble was, no-one at the time realised the implications for Research staff, and Research staff therefore continued to be remunerated at the old pay rates. The situation continued until early 2003 when it was (fortuitously) brought to the attention of Dr Rosemary Kelly, then Secretary of HSUA#4. One of Dr Kelly’s members, a researcher, found himself about to become a member of HSUA#3, and queried an apparent anomaly in the remuneration of PMCI Research staff. Dr Kelly investigated the matter, and determined that since the year 2000, PMCI had underpaid its Research staff by $3.16 million. When salary on-costs of $0.9 million were added to this amount, the overall underpayment totalled $4.06 million.
Because Dr Kelly, as Secretary of HSUA#4, did not have industrial standing with PMCI, she voiced her concerns to Kathy Jackson, then Secretary of HSUA#3. As a result of what Dr Kelly had told her, Kathy Jackson then drew the matter to the attention of PMCI in early March 2003. Thus began the events that would ultimately culminate in the payment of $250,000 to HSUA#3.
Although the PMCI Board at the time appeared to go to considerable lengths to deny that any Award breach had taken place, any reasonable interpretation of the events of 2003 would conclude that PMCI had underpaid its Research staff. Even then Chief Executive Officer, David Hillis, acknowledged this when, in a letter to the Victorian Department of Human Services dated 15 May 2003, he wrote:
“There is little doubt that under the terms of [the] Award as it currently stands Peter Mac has been underpaying these staff.”
The essential point here is that from 2000 onwards, PMCI was entitled to rely, and act, on the advice of its Director of Human Resources in matters pertaining to staff remuneration. That the Director of Human Resources was an employee of the external consulting company, SIAG, does not undermine this proposition. The fact is, SIAG failed in its professional duty from the very beginning to advise PMCI that Research staff were not being paid at the correct rates. If human resource professionals cannot be held responsible for such lapses, then who can be?
It was SIAG Managing Director Brian Cook’s testimony to the Royal Commission that in or around early March 2003 he was engaged by PMCI to “establish the framework for, and then negotiate a certified agreement with the NO.3 Branch, which became known as the “Health Services Union of Australia – Health Professionals – Peter Mac Certified Agreement 2000-2004” (Certified Agreement).” Mr Cook went on to testify that his role was to help create the framework to move forward with the Certified Agreement that would deal with the compliance issue, namely the underpayment of Research staff. Part of the framework negotiated and facilitated by Mr Cook was the “no back pay no redundancies” arrangement that included the $250,000 payment by PMCI to HSUA#3.
To many people it might appear bizarre that the party who was primarily responsible for the $4.06 million underpayment to Research staff, SIAG, would then be asked to deal with the “compliance issue”. It would seem that a significant conflict of interest could exist where a party who caused a problem is also asked to negotiate a satisfactory solution. What safeguards were implemented to ensure that the chief negotiator (SIAG) negotiated an agreement that best served the interests of its clients (PMCI and Research staff) rather than its own best interests? If SIAG acted incompetently in the discharge of its professional duties, it would (arguably) have good reason to make the problem “go away” so as to minimize damage to itself and its professional standing. It is interesting to note in the PMCI 2004 annual report that the Hospital was “reverting back” to an in-house human resource function.
Of course, all of this raises the important question about why PMCI was so keen to embrace the settlement it did in 2003, namely no back-pay, no redundancies and a $250,000 payment to HSUA#3. If SIAG was indeed responsible for the underpayment situation, then one obvious solution to the problem would have been for PMCI to pay Research staff the $4.06 million owed to them, and then take legal action against SIAG to recover the amount. The reality is, PMCI was (and still is) a large organisation in terms of financial resources, and it should have been able to easily accommodate this solution. The PMCI 2004 Financial Report shows a financially healthy entity, notwithstanding an operating deficit ($8.9 million) for the year. An organisation that reported revenue in 2004 of $143 million, expenses of $152 million and total assets of $179 million. And yet we have been led to believe the back pay issue threatened the future research capability of PMCI.
Indeed, one could speculate that the reason the Department of Human Services did not support the proposal to pay HSUA#3 the $250,000 payment was because PMCI was in sound financial health at the time, and could well afford to make good the underpayment to Research staff. Of course, what PMCI could afford to do, and what it preferred to do, are not necessarily the same. Regardless, there are still many questions to be answered in this murky episode. Hopefully, investigators will get to the bottom of the mess.
JB, your forensic skills are amazing.
Mr Cook may not have been totally forthcoming to the Royal Commission in his statement from what I have read. I suspect he will have more questions to answer, in that or other legal forums, including the degree and nature of interaction between SIAG and its’ employees with Ms Jackson in their negotiation of the so called “settlement” of $250,000 to HSU#3, and the culpability of his own firm in the pay debacle. I have no doubt authorities are already onto this line of enquiry.
It will be interesting to discover (although I note many documents are privileged or heavily redacted) to what extent Mr Cook and his company SIAG disclosed these negotiations to the PM board and executive.
Good interview. Such an intelligent, down to earth bloke. I hope he gets justice in the long term.
So do I.
Here Here!
Or is it Hear Hear !!!
Hi Peter,
I don’t think the LNP have particularly ‘turned’ against Kathy, I just think that now they are in power, she is surplus to requirements. Much as she might like to think of herself as a big player, she really only has a bit part. Perhaps she was seeking exoneration from her LNP ‘buddies’; well, we’ll see whether they are true to their word or not.
Here’s hoping not!
Did you know that james ashby worked on wyatt roy s family strawberry farm a few years ago. fancy that. keep up the amazing work Peter.