Yesterday as I headed into the Trade Union Royal Commission I sent out a tweet.
If #turc was ice cream Craig McGregor’s treatment would be Rocky Road and Kathy Jackson’s treatment so far would be soft serve #auspol
— Peter Wicks (@madwixxy) July 29, 2014
Well, at the Commission yesterday Kathy Jackson finally had a taste of that Rocky Road ice cream and it is fair to say she had a reaction that could be described as allergic.
In a day of dramatic proceedings and contradictory testimony the day ended in disaster for Kathy Jackson.
The day had started so well with Jackson arriving looking confident and with a beaming Michael Smith by her side, but ended with her crumbling on the Commission witness stand before arguing with the press outside as she left, still with a beaming Michael Smith beside her like a conjoined twin in a suit with a painted on grin.
All smiles before proceedings
Kathy Jackson had been called back into the Royal Commission to answer some more questions in relation to the so called NHDA bank account that she controlled as well as the agreement her union branch had formed with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute regarding the unpaid entitlements of workers. This was as a result of new evidence that had emerged.
There is much to report on regarding yesterdays proceedings so I will cover some today and some more later.
The questioning from Counsel Assisting Jeremy Stoljar started out quite soft and laid out the details of the agreement that was formed between Jackson’s union branch and Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute.
Based on Jackson’s testimony today the union spent large amounts of member’s funds on legal action against Peter Mac for not paying workers entitlements. These entitlements were quoted in the Commission as totalling $3.16 Million. A deal was struck between the union and Peter Mac so that Peter Mac paid no money to workers who hadn’t received their entitlements, the union retrieved the money they had spent on legal and other costs which was around $250K and Peter Mac got to hide the whole thing so that the board didn’t look bad. Everyone did well it seems, except the poor old members who were left short-paid.
It appears that for $250K the union no longer looks after its members, but instead looks after the board of the employer who underpaid the union members. Well that’s how it goes with Kathy Jackson running your union anyway…
Of course the fact that Jackson had sole access to the $250K settlement/bribe/reimbursement/penalty to spend however she saw fit would have had nothing to do with the sudden change of union allegiances.
While this alone is shocking and must seem obscene to those within the union movement, for those looking into Jackson’s time as union secretary it would appear as just another day at the office.
Jackson’s reasoning for not doing her job and pursuing the member’s entitlements is that there would have been 38 redundancies made at the hospital and as stated in a letter from Peter Mac
“The implications of these amounts if claimed through breaches of award proceedings would threaten the continued viability of Research at Peter Mac.”
While this may sound fair enough to some, it certainly does not excuse an employer for breaching their legal obligations to employees.
For a multi-million dollar operation like the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute which receives vast amounts of taxpayer funding it also seems a bit far-fetched and desperate.
If Jackson actually felt that strongly about the supposed fragile state of Peter Mac’s cancer research funds it certainly didn’t stop her from taking $250K from them for her own use.
The real trouble for Kathy Jackson however started when Stoljar pointed out that her testimony yesterday was conflicting with her previous testimony.
Jackson had previously testified that union members received payment for their entitlements, they hadn’t. Jackson had previously testified that the $250K was for penalties payable to the union by Peter Mac, it wasn’t. Jackson had previously testified that the $250K wasn’t members funds, and it was.
At one point the workers from Peter Mac came up in questioning the testimony was this:
Q Stoljar. On the 19th, the documents which I’ve taken you to this morning weren’t available, but when you answered the question, “Did members of the union who were working at Peter Mac get some payment?”, you answered “Yes”. That’s not correct, is it?
A Jackson. No, but at the time I thought it was correct, yes.
Last time Jackson’s testimony was that workers received payments and that has now turned out to be false testimony, however her testimony yesterday that she thought that was correct at the time also seems questionable.
Given that Jackson was central to the deal done between the union and Peter Mac and heavily involved in the agreement it would seem to me inconceivable that she did not know the content of the deed that her solicitor had drawn up on her behalf. This may suggest at the time of her earlier testimony that she should have been aware she was giving false testimony and could have done so unaware that further details would emerge as they have exposing her testimony as false.
When it came to the NHDA bank account where the $250K payment ended up Jackson was adamant that it was not member’s funds. This clearly frustrated Stoljar as Jackson had already admitted in her testimony that member’s funds had been used for legal costs involved in the Peter Mac matter. Now that the union was receiving reimbursement for those expenses suddenly they were no longer member’s funds.
However it became even worse than that for the long suffering members with Jackson testifying that in both her eyes and the eyes of her Branch Committee Of Management (BCOM) that once money went into the NHDA account it ceased to be members money.
This is quite alarming considering it is an account that there has been no evidence at all showing legitimate union expenditure. There has been spending at JB Hi Fi and David Jones as well as other retailers and a lot of cash withdrawals, but no evidence of union business as Jackson claims.
Jackson also admitted that she was expecting the NHDA account of hers to end up with $400K in it after it was revealed through minutes of branch meetings that the BCOM had approved the transfer of up to $90K of members funds a year into the NHDA account where they would cease to be members funds.
To me this is not unlike walking out of a retailer with an item you haven’t paid for and claiming it’s no longer the retailers because they no longer have it in their store.
Some would describe the proceeds of the NHDA account and its expenditure as theft. Judging from her testimony and the branch minutes, for Kathy Jackson it was seemingly business as usual.
The graphic used in this channel 9 report summed it up brilliantly for me
I note that NHDA apparently stands for National Health Development Association. I also note there is nothing in the accounts expenditure that relates to health at all, nor is it a registered association. It is just a name on a bank account that Jackson has complete control of and is not monitored or audited by the union.
One payment that has been talked about in the media has been the $50K payment to Jeff Jackson, Kathy’s ex-husband.
This payment had slipped her mind last time she testified apparently and her testimony yesterday was that she forgot who the $50K was paid to.
Stoljars response was that Jackson’s testimony was
“Not credible evidence”
Shortly afterwards there was a break in proceedings and after proceedings resumed things turned rather ugly.
Last time Kathy Jackson was on the stand this is what she stated before standing down;
“I just wanted to say that I welcome this Royal Commission and I believe that I speak for many unionists when I say that. I remain fully committed to cooperating with the Commission. I remain totally committed to the idea of unionism, and I believe it’s essential that working people organise and unionise.”
Jackson’s full commitment to the Royal Commission didn’t last long.
It seems that as soon as counsel assisting started looking at allegations against her and pointing out her contradictory testimony and misleading statements Jackson’s commitment rapidly evaporated.
Jackson suddenly claimed that she needed time to seek legal guidance claiming that the Commission had “ambushed” her.
She claimed that she had not been told by the Commission that she was going to be questioned on these matters in this manner and as she had no legal representation was entitled to the legal assistance that is provided to whistleblowers through the Commission.
This is bizarre on many levels in my mind.
Firstly the whistleblowers legal assistance provided by the Commission is designed for those who can’t defend themselves and are seeking protection from outside threats such as legal threats or bullying and harassment. It is not designed to protect someone from the Commission itself. The Commission is only a threat if you have done something the Commission has been set up to expose and you are seeking to avoid scrutiny or possible criminal or civil proceedings or investigations.
Ironically if Jackson receives this legal assistance it will once again be union members footing the bill for her, this time as taxpayers.
I also find it startling that Jackson has come into a Royal Commission with absolutely no legal representation. What happened to all of the legal support she was receiving from her right-wing pals?
Not so smiley after proceedings
Jackson’s claim that she was ambushed and had not been told what she was to be facing is also an odd claim.
Did she really expect to be given notice of what she was to be asked? Has she been informed previously of what was going to be occurring?
Jackson seemed to have a genuine belief that allegations against her would be ignored because she has portrayed herself as a whistleblower. She was clearly shocked and visibly shaken at the realisation that she was suddenly going to be accountable for her own actions.
It appeared like Jackson had assumed she was a protected species and that it had now dawned on her that her protection no longer wanted to risk being dragged down with her.
This apparent realisation seemed to hit Jackson quite hard.
With no legal representation Jackson seemingly had only the advice of her companion Michael Smith to rely on.
Whatever advice she was given, or whatever she decided alone the end result was she refused to answer further questions and fled.
Jackson claims she cannot afford legal representation.
Tonight Jackson presumably spends the night with her partner Michael Lawler who earns approximately $400K per year of taxpayer funds. She will likely sleep with him in their multimillion dollar property.
Things are tough all over…
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
Follow @madwixxy
Well written Peter,
I was stunned she sat there without representation, as for the ambush claim, did she honestly think she as one of the heads involved could just walk in, make claims and allegations then walk away unscrutinised?
I do believe Kathy had forgotten her claims of deliberate misuse of funds against Thommo also show she is fully aware of what is illegal and improper. Now there’s a dead albatross of liability hanging ground her neck if ever I saw one.
Kathy has been the subject of numerous allegation by yourself, the IA & many others over a long period, how could she believe she was devoid of responsibility just because she blew the whistle? Her arrogance in this matter is breathtaking. Either that or she honestly believed what I suspect she received, the rights promise of immunity from prosecution if she turned on her own. After all, shes heroic and a fine example according to Abbott and Pyne.
Her no lawyer routine I find hard to believe, I suspect that was a ploy to ensure a bail out avenue if the water got to hot, no doubt there will be much objecting to come once lawyers are engaged.
Glad to see you’re hard work and the numerous attacks tou suffered for you’re diligence is now being rewarded before the Commission.
Somehow I suspect the best is yet to come.
Cheers mate,
Brooksy.
It’s disappointing that all of your hard work, Peter, is barely (if ever) acknowledged in the MSM. After the years you spent painstakingly uncovering so much evidence, to have the MSM picking up the story as though they discovered it must be galling.
Well done Wixxy, let’s hope though that they, or some other INDEPENDENT INQUIRY, also has a little look into the non-‘investigations’ carried out by Victoria Police Fraud Squad in relation to this and many other matters….I say a little look because it won’t take much more to show a lack of commitment, other than for P.R.opportunities!
Cheers Brooksy,
I think she tries too hard to play little miss vulnerable on the stand, and then goes on the attack in front of the camera’s.
She has been trying to play the Commission like a fiddle and yesterday the strings broke.
Thanks for your support too mate.
Now all the evidence is emerging I feel like I can take off the tin foil hat at last.
Leftleaninglifter. In a way they do acknowledge wixxy’s work by shamelessly stealing it, labeling it exclusive and running it on page one. The Australian ran a smear campaign against peter aided and abetted by crikey at one stage. Now it’s clear news Ltd has decided Kathy is expendable and will try to knock her off while trying to protect Michael Lawler as he is just too close to Abbott. Peter. I hope you have entered Jacksonville in the Walkley awards. You deserve one.
Cheers for that, I did enter an article a couple of years back and ironically McClymont won a Walkley that year for her article re Kathy Jackson’s version of the credit cards supplied by Communigraphix that was disproved ages ago but has now been acknowledged as incorrect by The Australian and even McClymonts employer Fairfax in a front page story from The Age a while back.
I may have another crack this year seeing as though it’s now coming into mainstream.
Thanks for the encouragement
Witnesses sometimes say amazing things while under serious examination. I think Kathy J has just added another couple of offences to the list she will face at her inevitable criminal trial. Perjury looks like a starter and so does conspiracy [with ex hubby] to defraud the HSU. We are in for a year of trials after this RC. Almost makes me homesick for a good defence brief. No doubt there will be plenty of counsel ready to take the cases. It will be interesting to see if KJ gets Legal Aid for her trial.
If anyone has ever deserved the Walkley it is you. in fact your winning the award would restore to it the credibility it has lost.
It was hard to miss the irony of the Herald report this morning being placed right next to the report of the launching of a book written by Kate McClymont, the person who in an interview on commercial radio derided Craig Thomson for telling such pernicious lies about such decent honest people as KJ and Bolano, in his speech to Parliament in April 2012. Those who lauded McClymont at the launch should be starting to ask themselves questions about her so-called “investigative skills”.
One still has to ask how the presiding judge could give KJ even more time, yet again, to make up some more fictions to tell the Commission.
I have just re-read Thomson’s speech to Parliament and it is looking more and more like the truth every time KJ and Bolano make a comment.
I think she really believes she is/was a protected species, truly amazing…….. I also love the magical facts she presents that once funds appear in the magical account they are no longer members funds ….. I guess it is one way to protect the fact that it looked and smells like a bribe ………….
I think she stated that “I’m no political virgin, I know what goes on, That’s why I wanted this royal commission”.
So she was willing to expose herself only then claim, I only did what everyone else did, I knew what went on & I wanted the whole union movement to be cleaned up.
When did this beam of light shine upon her head & for what reasons?
Will you be looking into the allegation regarding Shorten and how she alleges that Labor and Shorten are behind the so called harassment, trolls, etc and does the allegation about the friend she never had and the link to Shorten have any legs? Do you think it is a diversionary tactic to try and bring Labor into the fold?
Nifty. Like everything she says it will turn out to be bullshit. She has served her purpose for Libs she is about to be thrown to the wolves. I always hoped this star chamber would blow up in Abbott’s face. If they go after Lawler it will be a massive own goal. I would think Craig Thomson’s appeal is looking better for him day by day.
If, and it’s a big if, she was entitled to spend the Peter Mac money as she saw fit, then isn’t that money part of her income?
Surely the tax office should be looking into Ms Jacksons income tax returns during this timeframe and checking whether she declared this money or not.
Not even a big if. It was the equivalent of transubstantiation. Money that was union money moves into Kathy’s dodgy fund and becomes hers. It’s a miracle.
Pickering has posted details about the nature of the relationship between Michael Smith and Kathy Jackson. Some are confused. Here are the facts.
He and the Czech Princess have no children. His children are to his second wife. His third wife (the ‘Princess’) kicked him out months ago. For the last few months at least he has been living with Michael Lawler and Kathy Jackson on the south coast of NSW. His declared close relationship with her is very, very close notwithstanding the presence of Lawler. Smith and Jackson did go to Bali on holidays together without Lawler. Pickering is right again. I know these facts to be true.