Help Crowd Fund The Jacksonville Book Here
The embattled Royal Commission into Trade Unions has seen its Counsel Assisting Jeremy Stoljar QC realise his submission into the HSU, reviving questions around the Commissions bias and integrity.
The Coalition’s Inquisition into Trade Unions, otherwise known as the Royal Commission, Liberal Witch-Hunt, or to some a legal fat-cat feeding frenzy has now seen its Counsel Assisting, Jeremy Stoljar finally release his much-anticipated submission regarding the HSU.
For a Royal Commission that has seen its integrity questioned more times than Christopher Pyne’s sexuality, this was to be one important submission.
For those who have been following the Health Services Union matters Stoljars submission, which can be viewed in full via this link, there was no real surprises. Interested parties were left shaking their heads in bewilderment at a submission which in parts appears aimed at political spin and dodging responsibility.
Jeremy Stoljar – Spin Control
Image – Brisbane Times
So what do I mean by political spin?
It is my view that the playing down of Kathy Jackson’s role by dragging into his submission the Michael Williamson and Craig Thomson matters has a definite political bent to it. After all Williamson and Thomson are understandably seen as tied with the Labor Party, while Kathy Jackson is now seen as a close friend and ally of the Coalition. The Royal Commissions’ steadfast refusal to adequately delve into Jackson’s tenure at the Union will forever stain those associated with it.
The Guardian reported it like this;
“Stoljar has recommended that the Commissioner make findings against Jackson and Thomson, as well as the former HSU boss Michael Williamson, that reflect that they had been “personally responsible” for the misappropriation of more than $2.4 million of HSU members’ money.”
While that may sound fair enough to some, to others who actually stop and think, it seems somewhat less so.
This was a Royal Commission claiming right from the outset that it was not there to look at matters that were already before the courts or had already been dealt with. However in the HSU matter rather than focus on the alleged thief and fraudster with Liberal Party friends and ties that they could shine a light on, best change their own rules on focus so the focus can be diluted by two old cases instead.
Has the Commission really failed so badly that rehashing these cases seemed a good option? Why not bring up Norm Gallagher and the BLF while they are at it. Actually why stop there? Ned Kelly was for the working class wasn’t he?
The Commission doesn’t want to bring up old cases, but….
Dredging up old cases only further taints a Commission that is already in a state of integrity crisis.
Michael Williamson currently resides in a prison cell. What possible purpose would making findings against him serve that are not political in nature? It is not like they are going to start his court cases again, or put him in prison, he’s already there.
It is also worth noting that the Royal Commission did not cover or explore the allegations against Williamson or Thomson. Making findings on cases that were not even heard at the Commission is like asking a judge to rule on a case in the courtroom next door that he hasn’t even heard.
In regards to the money, $2.4 million, I didn’t need to reach for my calculator to realise that dragging Thomson into this is nothing short of ridiculous and clearly has a political objective. After all, Williamson is in prison for approximately $1 million, and Jackson was found in Federal Court to have been responsible for around $1.4 million.
2.4 million minus 1 million, minus 1.4 million… what does that leave Thomson with again? Oh…
Just as Thomson being found not guilty regarding brothels and hookers in court doesn’t stop Julian Morrow from making cheap and predictable jokes at his expense on the Chasers Media Circus, being found guilty of what equates to small change won’t stop Stoljar from dropping him into the equation with millions of dollars others have absconded with.
Once again the Royal Commissions pseudo integrity is on display for anyone willing to look between the lines.
In other related news, editors at The Australian were required to publish an apology to one of TURC’s junior counsel’s Fiona Roughley, as well as a letter from Ms Roughley.
This apology was in relation to The Australian claiming that the Commission had been “coaching” Kathy Jackson based on the file notes some of which were made by Ms Roughley.
Unfortunately The Australian misquoted those file notes and hence forced into a position of having to apologise for the article. Yes, even the main-stream media are prone to the odd mistake from time to time. This mistake has unfortunately placed a cloud over what in my opinion was an excellent article and one that highlighted at best questionable practices within the Royal Commission, practices that have yet to be adequately addressed and answered for.
This is almost as cosy as our relationship with the turkeys at TURC
Whether or not you deem it as “coaching” or not, the correspondence certainly indicates a cosy relationship between a Royal Commission, Australia’s second highest ranking industrial judge, and possibly the biggest union fraudster in this countries history.
I have uploaded all of the correspondence documents to my Jacksonville Resource Page under the heading “Private Correspondence Between Royal Commission, Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler” for readers to make up their own minds.
However as telling as those documents are as to the relationship between Commission and alleged criminal currently under investigation by Victorian and Federal Police, it is what it doesn’t say that we should be even more concerned about.
These documents show that there was regular contact, some that involved planning, between Kathy Jackson and her legal team. These documents also give an account of the “on-record” parts of those conversations and meetings, I’d like to know the details of anything else that may have been discussed. Oh I’m sure that officials would say that nothing else was discussed between the allegedly corrupt and the pseudo corruption busters, but I wonder how many would be convinced of that claim.
Since the Liberal Party grimly disposed of their former inept leader, Tony Abbott it was hoped that a fresh perspective from the top might prevail and we may see action taken regarding the Commissions lack of integrity, in particular Dyson Heydon himself. It was also hoped that Kathy Jackson’s partner, Michael Lawler may be removed from his taxpayer-funded $430K judicial role that he rarely shows up for. Those hopes have so far been in vain.
As long as Lawler still collects his salary from the public purse, and as long as those who have shown their integrity to be at best questionable still run the Royal Commission they should be considered as Malcolm Turnbull’s picks rather than the former ‘Captains”. After all, Turnbull is in the position to make the necessary changes and as yet has failed to do so.
The biased, the bludger, and the fraudster?
Welcome to team Turnbull.
Sad fact, Brandis and the TURC are joined at the arse. As long as Brandis is AG we will see nothing different in Turnbulls operation of this disgraceful slur on the purpose of a Royal Commission.
It was corrupted from the second Brandis initiated it on behalf of the madman Abbott. We now have the evidence of that, in the actions of the Commissioner and his ‘trusted’ counsel assisting.
They both should forever hang their heads in shame.
disgraceful behavior by so called Royal Commission.Appalling and Corrupt
We know we paid for the breasts, did we also pay for the teeth. Shame you didn’t invest in elecution and etiquette – Greek immigrant parents who worked multiple jobs to pay, the first born and university educated – who you made them SO PROUD (for a minute) but always Kaffy – can’t dodge that ball – even Michael Smith thought the accent was a joke – time is up Kaffy – no blowdryers in jail – but hey, blow baby blow!
Peter – I think you might have misunderstood and/or misconstrued the fundamental purpose of the TURC. To the extent that you have done so, I wonder whether your bold and emphatic labels such as “political spin”, “dodging reality”, “definite political bent”, “integrity crisis” and other unflattering references like “will forever stain those associated with it” are truly justified?
The official name of the TURC is “The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption”. And when you carefully read the Letters Patent that established the TURC, it is abundantly clear that this Royal Commission is generally concerned with “governance” and “corruption” within trade unions. This Royal Commission is NOT concerned with establishing or proving the guilt (or innocence) of individual trade unionists. Neither is this Royal Commission concerned with constructing a league table of trade union crooks. Indeed, this Royal Commission (like all Royal Commissions) does not have the legal power to prosecute individuals, or pass judgement on individuals. However, if in the course of its inquiries the Royal Commission thinks laws might have been broken, then it has the power to RECOMMEND that individuals be investigated further by prosecutorial or police authorities.
In this light, it seems sensible to interpret Stoljar’s submission as merely making an important point about trade union governance – namely that an entrenched trade union leadership culture can lead to bad consequences. And the HSU provides a good case in point. The entrenched culture within the HSU was such that three successive HSU leaders were able to misappropriate millions of dollars from their union members over many years, and did so with considerable impunity. Stoljar was not commenting on who was the worst, or least deserving, of the three crooked HSU leaders Michael Williamson, Craig Thomson or Kathy Jackson. He simply pointed out the indisputable fact that here were three successive trade union leaders who were able to steal from members because insufficient internal controls existed to prevent this from happening. It matters not how much money each of these crooks stole. What does matter is that these crooks were able to steal the money in the first place.
I think it is fair enough, Peter, that you (like most others) have you own political biases. But such biases should not be allowed to obscure objective thinking, or dispassionate analysis. Historical narratives (such as you current book in progress) should, as far as possible, try to discard the lens of political bias. Failure to do this will inevitably result in preaching to the converted, and being unfairly condemned out of hand by those holding an opposite political bias. To me, it would be far more sensible to strike a more neutral pose and stick to the objective facts. A major benefit of this is that when your book is published, you will be taken seriously by far more people than would otherwise be the case.