After former journalist for the Australian Brad Norington appeared on Lateline last night to promote his new book Planet Jackson on the HSU saga, many approached me for my opinion. Others took to Twitter to vent their frustration at a “Murdoch Hack” going on Lateline to dump on Bill Shorten.
I’ll start out by saying that Norington is not just another “Murdoch Hack”, he is one of those from the MSM who did a lot to turn public opinion on Jackson around. Norington uncovered the ugly battle over the estate of David Rofe QC that had Jackson and partner Michael Lawler seemingly taking advantage of an aging dementia patient in order to inherit millions from his estate, and how Lawler even purchased a neighbouring house near his and Jackson’s with Rofe’s money. So it’s fair to say I have a lot of respect for Norington and look forward to his book.
Given that however I do have some concerns after watching his interview on Lateline last night.
Lateline, and perhaps Noringtons publishers may have an interest in talking about Bill Shorten, Cesar Melhem, and his Royal Commission appearance regarding the AWU, but I don’t understand how it relates to the HSU case. Last night Lateline host Emma Alberici stated that Norington
“focused significant attention in the book on Bill Shorten and his appearance before the Trade Union Royal Commission”
Shortens appearance at the Royal Commission and his actions at the AWU are not related at all to the HSU saga, so one can’t help but wonder why “significant attention” is given to it, or why any attention at all would be given to it in a book that is on another topic altogether. It sounds like there is another agenda at play here perhaps?
When discussing allegations involving Craig Thomson, Norington claimed
“… Craig Thomson’s alleged, in fact now proven misuse of credit cards on prostitutes”
I was expecting more from Norington than highly misleading commentary such as this.
In fact there has not been “proven misuse” at all. These were criminal charges that Thomson defended in court and was cleared of. Thomson was in fact cleared of ALL credit card misuse in those criminal proceedings. Norington is referring to civil proceedings which Thomson could no longer afford the legal fees to defend after years defending himself in other proceedings. These civil proceedings saw evidence entered into court unopposed for financial reasons, and therefore accepted by the court. Norington however leaves that out of his account having already made the choice of sides for his readers.
This is exactly the type of reckless misreporting that saw the Magistrate in one of Thomson’s court cases publicly berate and slam Noringtons colleagues Ean Higgins and Pia Ackerman for making deliberate false claims about court proceedings on the same topic of prostitutes.
Accepted is a far cry from “proven” and in fact in criminal proceedings when Thomson could afford legal representation they were dismissed totally due to the prosecutions complete and utter inability to prove any expenditure on prostitution despite going to great lengths to try.
Craig Thomson himself claims Norington has not approached him regarding the book or the claims. While most journalists try to provide balance Norington it would seem has relied on prosecution court documents. Lucky he wasn’t writing a book on Lindy Chamberlain.
Norington claims that things went quiet after 2009 when allegations against Thomson were first made. The inference seeming to suggest Jackson had a clear run up until the Royal Commission when the mainstream media finally woke up to her.
Is that sirens I can hear?
On the contrary, things were not so quiet. Jackson spent a great deal of this time being praised by Noringtons employer News Ltd, as a hero, Lateline referred to her as a heroic whistleblower and she was lauded all over the main stream media as some kind of wonder woman.
Also in that time making quite a lot of noise was little old me. My articles on Wixxyleaks and Independent Australia were making quite a lot of noise. Enough noise for Noringtons own paper The Australian to publish an article on their front page in an attempt to discredit me. Enough noise also to see me receive legal threats via email and phone calls from Noringtons colleagues and to actually defend legal challenges by Kate McClymont and Michael Lawler. Both Independent Australia’s Managing Editor David Donovan and myself spent a lot of time fending off legal issues brought on by those in the main stream who now would like to pretend we never existed.
It’s wasn’t just me either, making noise about Jackson’s alleged corruption well before I arrived on the scene was Andrew Landeryou and Vex News.
I guess you could say it was about as quiet as a Motorhead concert in an echo chamber. However those with selective deafness like to say they missed all the racket.
Make no mistake, the main stream media in this country are a club and those who expose their shortcomings are not welcome.
For those wondering, my book on the matter is still a work in progress as there is still so much yet to come.
Norington last night said that “if” the police take action it will be before the end of the year. A pretty big window from the journalist who insisted the utterly damning portrayal of Jackson and Lawler by 4 Corners was going to be a puff-piece once again promoting Jackson as a heroic whistleblower.
My inquiries lead me to believe we can expect something from police much sooner.
Stay tuned.
Follow @madwixxy
Well said,Peter. You are absolutely correct on every detail. This is what distinguishes you from the mainstream writers who make sure they “interpret” all political events from the vested interest viewpoint of their employers. Empirical evidence to support claims seems to be no longer a requirement for Murdoch and Fairfax publications – or many of those who work for the ABC as David Donovan so pertinently shows.
Like you, I am very disappointed in Norington.
My sense is that the book was meant to be on TURC more broadly but became increasingly focussed on KJ. Nonetheless, some of that broader TURC stuff remains and sits awkwardly with the rest of the book.
I’m sure it sits very awkwardly as it’s irrelevant to the Jackson story that one would assume given the title it is actually about, based on his comments re Shorten on Lateline Jackson will be quite happy
Having said that, KJ and Shorten were very close so there is clear relevance there and of course both were caught up
In TURC so there is relevance there too. I’ve not finished reading so it’s probably unfair for me to critique the book yet. Certainly what I’ve read so far is excellent and presents a narrative that accords with the facts as I know them.
The Jackson – Lawler saga and the involvement of all the usual suspects from the top of the LNP with both Jackson and Lawler is so absurd and possibly so corrupt it makes a joke of TURC and one can’t help thinking this book is Mudoch financed damage control. Peter be careful when you publish, remember what happened to Bob Ellis with his book for the crime of telling the truth which is it seems illegal under NSW libel laws. When will we see you on 7.30? Or Q&A? Nah might have to be Australian Storey. Another $10 next pension day keep up the good work.
Peter – I am a little confused about the following statement contained in your article:
“In fact there has not been “proven misuse” at all. These were criminal charges that Thomson defended in court and was cleared of. Thomson was in fact cleared of ALL credit card misuse in those criminal proceedings.”
To me, at least, your statement could be construed as implying Thomson was cleared of all criminal charges. But, this was clearly not the case. Thomson was, on appeal, CONVICTED of thirteen charges of theft (after being acquitted of 51 other criminal charges) and fined $25,000. That is to say, Thomson now has a criminal record for stealing even though he was able to avoid imprisonment.
But maybe your essential point was not that Thomson avoided conviction for the crime of “theft”, but rather that he was not convicted of crimes arising from “credit card misuse”? Or, put another way, Thomson ripped of the HSU’s bank rather than the HSU itself?
If this is indeed what you are saying, then I think readers should take care not to form the mistaken impression that Craig Thomson was found innocent of all criminal charges. He was not. Thomson is a convicted thief albeit for a relatively small amount of money. Although I am sure there would be people who feel that stealing is okay provided the amount of money involved is not too large, I think most people would agree that theft is theft, and a thief is a thief.
Craig was indeed found guilty on several charges, I did not want to create the impression he wasn’t.
Those charges were however not related to credit card usage as Norington stated on Lateline.
It is vital that those reporting on this matter not make false claims, as others use it later as evidence of something that is incorrect. This case as we all know has been one of the worst cases of trial by media and misreporting we have ever seen.
Absolutely, that is a different matter and one I have written about also, but not the whole AWU matter.
I’m glad to hear that, I certainly hope the book is both good and accurate, I’m looking forward to reading it
Peter – I guess it all depends on how broadly, or how narrowly, one defines “credit card usage”. Craig Thomson was acquitted of 51 criminal charges of defrauding the HSU. The Court held that the money Thomson misappropriated belonged to the bank rather than the union, which therefore meant he could not have “defrauded” the HSU. Thomson was convicted of theft, namely money. And the vehicle he used to carry out his theft was a credit card. Thus, and on a broad interpretation, it could reasonably be said the crime Thomson was convicted of was related to “credit card usage”. The term “credit card usage” is a neutral one and of itself does not imply the direction of injury. I know this line of argument is principally one of semantics, but to suggest a journalist might be using false claims is quite a serious matter.
I understand it is a serious matter, which is why it is important to get it right, there were highly publicised charges that were related to itemised brothel payments on credit card statements that were pictured in all the press and shown on TV more times than I can count. This is what the public remember as it was drummed into them for years. What Norington said on Lateline reinforces those beliefs.
The charges related to those transactions were dismissed. All of them. Not one remained. This is not semantics, it is public record.
Implying that they weren’t by referring to “proven misuse of credit cards on prostitution” is an extremely serious matter indeed, particularly on national tv.
From the Lateline link below, it seems that Brad Norington’s reference to Craig Thomson is a surprisingly fleeting one. Certainly I did not get the impression than Norington was having a real go at Craig Thomson. To the extent that Thomson paid for items with a credit card, what Norington said seemed pretty innocuous. Of course, I cannot vouch that Thomson always used a credit card for his purchases. For all I know, Thomson might have paid in cash when he used escort services. Is there evidence that escort services were paid for using a credit card?
In terms of the AWU link with the HSU, I don’t think Norington was making, or even admitting to, such a link. As far as I could see he was merely responding to questions put to him by the interviewer. It remains to be seen the extent to which, or even whether, Norington discusses the AWU in his soon to be released book “Planet Jackson”.
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/lateline/NC1625H125S00#playing
During the interview you linked he agrees that a significant part of the book deals with Bill Shortens time before TURC regarding the AWU, as
The title “Planet Jackson” would lead one to assume the book focuses on Jackson and the HSU, not Shorten and the AWU
The entire evidence for prostitution services was based on credit card usage, not one charge relating to credit card usage was upheld by the court
Yes, Peter, you are right. I stand corrected – Norington does admit to a focus on Bill Shorten and the AWU. It will be interesting to read just what Norington feels the link is between the HSU saga and the AWU under Bill Shorten. I would hope the link he makes is based on evidence and not just mere assertion. Reading between the lines, however, Norington seems to imply during the interview that Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon was inconsistent in his findings in relation to Kathy Jackson as compared to his findings in relation to Bill Shorten.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m looking forward to the book and I have a great deal of respect for Brad.
I’m sure his research into Jackson is meticulous and I hope it nails both her and Lawler
I was on the phone with another close follower of this saga when Norrington made that demented claim and we both nearly choked on our coffee and threw bricks at the TV. You are right about the MSM who have now made a big deal out of Landeryou and a couple of others defacing and vandalising corflutes while largely ignoring the real story of Mantach going to prison for stealing $1.5 million from the liberal party.
They also made a huge fuss about the mini-issue of the ”militant fire fighters union” as if that was real and don’t seem to understand that volunteers are not included in pay deals even after it was pointed out by lawyers.
Terri and I both said ‘it’s only thanks to Wicks that we know who Jackson really is”.
can’t believe Norington what the hell is he on?
I will wait for your book, Peter.
The Vic County Court judge on appeal found Craig had used his HSU card to withdraw cash from its bank account then use that cash to employ escort/prostitute services. This totalled about $5,000. The prostitutes were not paid by directly using the card with them but with the money he obtained by using the card to get it. As I understand the money was found to belong to the HSU upon being withdrawn by Craig who was then found to have an obligation to apply it only for HSU authorised purposes which did not include prostitutes.
We should not forget the valiant fight put up by James QC,Craig’s Counsel, to successfully “beat” the greater number of charges. He apparently argued to the end that as there was no evidence the HSU had a contractual right to the funds in law there was no chose in action and therefor no property of the HSU to be stolen. We are still awaiting an apology from the Coalition members who bad-mouthed Thomson and who have been proved grossly in error. These include our current AG the rest also claiming lawyer status! There is a further argument the Judge used some of these transactions as similar to justify a certain kind of logic the charge under scrutiny by her was likely to have been dishonest. This raises a separate issue whether this is correct in law to use this evidence as similar fact evidence.
Absolutely concur Peter – your efforts were fundamental. I just can’t understand how some journos suddenly stop thinking, caring or wanting to inform readers after undeservingly snagging snagging an accolade that only comes by forced repetition. These people strangely end up running interference on stories their readers should be hearing – the motivation is, of course, selfish and the consequence is that the ever-decreasing ability to scrutinise rorting politicians is further weakened. Luke Foley offers no hope and only humours the masses as a bit of a novelty act while the search continues for someone electable. Foley today chose to pursue factional dirty laundry rather than highlight the obvious political tampering of ICAC in it’s latest document that will one day make great emergency bog roll. No one has bothered to suss out what Greg Smith has been up to after getting the ass and then conveniently stepping down to commence – with no announcement or disclosure – prosecutor work for the guy he appointed to a 10-year gig. No doubt the DPP is staunchly resistant to his annointer’s suggestions and opinions and there would never be any sort of conflict of interest or flaunting of influence – mainly because most MSM journos are either: a) too young to know what’s happened in recent history b) too lazy to care about scrutinising suspicious activity or c) have completed the process of normalisation in which rorts, contracts for mates, kickbacks and all the metrics of an accomplished pollie become standard, expected and even condoned. Enough ranting – keep up the good work, you’re an important part of the frontline that genuinely respects, protects and we may need to start genetically cloning you – especially in light of a recent outbreak in MSM muppetry!