I remember that I was one angry lad when shortly after being elected into government the Abbott government pulled money from the Royal Commission into Child Abuse to funnel it into the Royal Commissions into the Pink Batts fiasco and Trade Unions.
I thought that it is probably only fair that I should congratulate the Abbott government for its decision to continue funding the Royal Commission into Child Abuse for another two years.
Child abuse is a hideous crime and if there is a culture of covering up crimes and assisting perpetrators then we need to do all that we can to uncover those responsible, then publicly humiliate them, charge them, sentence them, and finally throw them to the wolves in the Long Bay Jail shower block and wish them a pleasant stay. They may even get to spend the rest of their wretched lives seeing the world through the eyes of a victim.
The Royal Commission into Child Abuse has unearthed some shocking cases of child abuse on an industrial scale from organisations such as the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and the Salvation Army amongst others.
The Royal Commission into Child Abuse was put in place by the Gillard government and has been so effective that the Abbott government has had to extend it further. This is despite the fact that initially Abbott was not so keen to support a Royal Commission due to his ties with the Catholic Church.
John Nestor, ousted by the Vatican for child abuse, but described by Abbott as a man of integrity
By contrast we have the two Royal Commissions that have been set up by the Abbott government, the Pink Batt Royal Commission and the Trade Union Royal Commission.
These commissions were not set up to protect children or anything remotely noble like that, they were set up for political purposes, at a cost to the taxpayer of millions of dollars. While the government throws billions of our dollars at the legal fraternity for these Royal Commissions it still continues to talk about slashing services, cutting corners, punishing pensioners, and slugging us all at the petrol pump, the doctors, and the grocery store, because of the apparent budget emergency of great convenience.
So have the public got value for money?
The Pink Batts Royal Commission has finally finished and what have we discovered that is new?
We already knew that it was implemented in a hurry and poorly managed. Responsibility for this mismanagement fell mostly on the shoulders of Peter Garrett who was the Minister responsible.
There were the deaths of four young installers during the running of this scheme, we all knew about this, however nothing that surfaced during the Royal Commission told us anything new about these tragic deaths.
Curiously the employers who sent these young men up into the roofs of these houses with little or no training to die of hypothermia or electrocution didn’t receive a lot of attention. I guess that wasn’t part of the political agenda being run.
At the end of it all the public spent millions of dollars to find out what could have been discovered in a few minutes with a Google search.
This is what we have come to expect from a government that promised to “end the waste”.
There will be a 5 volume edition dedicated to Liberal waste coming soon
When it comes to the Royal Commission into Trade Unions little has come as a result.
There has been no deluge of corruption findings as the Coalition seemed to be hoping for.
So far it has been a very expensive fishing expedition and the only person that has come up looking like they are going to be facing the music in a big way is Kathy Jackson.
We have heard tales of bullying that are no more extreme than any other cases of bullying in any other workplaces, I’m sure there would be ex-staffers from Liberal Party MP’s offices with worse tales than what we have heard. We have also seen video and heard recordings of language that I’m sure is no more threatening or harsh than those used by big business CEO’s towards middle management after a board meeting.
For the only likely scalp so far to be Kathy Jackson is really an own goal for the Coalition.
This woman who we now know spent over a million on credit cards and took a payment of $250K for herself rather than seeing cancer workers paid correctly amongst a raft of other things has been praised for years by the Coalition. Tony Abbott, Christopher Pyne, Eric Abetz, George Brandis and many others.
It is clear that this is a government that is desperate to find anything it possibly can to distract from the disaster that is their first Federal Budget.
This is a government that is happy to waste millions of our dollars trying to find something to turn around the disastrous polls.
This is a government that has no idea what it is doing and is grasping for something to cling to as it sinks.
Based on what we have seen from the Royal Commissions so far we are also witnessing a government that is so incompetent the best they can do is score an own goal.
Unfortunately, we are the suckers paying for it.
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
For All Your Video Production Needs
The more this mob does, the more it becomes clear what a good PM Julia Gillard was – not perfect, but who is! And it throws into even starker relief the campaign waged against her by Rupert & Co.
Left leaning, just because this mob are worse than Gillard does not mean Gillard was any good. Another young man has died as a result of her evil policy of trafficking refugees to rot for years on Nauru and Manus and she gifted Morrison a dictatorship.
You are right yet again Peter. Let’s hope, however, that Michael Lawler won’t escape being charged, His actions as Vice-President of Fair Work Australia warrant the kind of scrutiny and analysis that only you have so far have provided. Some of his actions have been distinctly corrupt. For the safety of HSU members, Marco Bolano is also in need of some kind of attention.
In my view the Royal Commission into the HSU is the first of several tests of the fairness of operation of the Australian legal system. I hope that we will be judging it positively over the next 12 months. Our recent history suggests that powerful self-interest wins over justice and equality. Look at the Federal Budget! It is not hard to see who stands to win and who stands to lose if all of it gets passed.
As I said, she wasn’t perfect and appeasing the racists may have been her biggest failing, but that doesn’t alter the fact that she got a lot right.
as usual, i’m with you Marilyn … being slightly (arguably) less crap than our current crop is no endorsement or comfort … we have a broken system full of broken people breaking promises … not something even Hector – my rooster – would crow about (and he’s compulsive about crowing).
time for real, institutional, systemic change … come on Peter, liberate yourself and offer an alternative to your local constituents … free of party machinations and their dirty deals.
Was an old saying by some politician about royal commissions being uncontrollable once started and even with the most limiting of terms of reference these ones need a compliant press to ease their pain.
The Abbott search for truth cut pensions for a phony budget emergency but now has cut super to all, he throws the craziest allegations at Putin but now still with flight recorder release blocked by major powers Putin has arranged ceasefire with Ukraine, ISIS shock at murder of two journalists but even though Abbott and Bishop dance between the M20 and UN not one mention that Peter Greste and his fellow journalists still being held hostage as an act of state sanctioned terror to silence reporting in Egypt, and they are innocent, and they are in prisons so horrible that they will be lucky to survive with their health or sanity or even their lives, how can we do something about this? Journalists are being murdered and imprisoned every where and the only one Abbott worries about is Bolts freedom to verbally vomit all over us
Peter Greste is an Australian and is suffering and Abbott and bishop do nothing
http://www.news.com.au/world/secret-video-leaked-by-prisoners-from-inside-the-egypt-prison-where-peter-greste-is-being-held/story-fndir2ev-1226966925949
http://www.news.com.au/world/secret-video-leaked-by-prisoners-from-inside-the-egypt-prison-where-peter-greste-is-being-held/story-fndir2ev-1226966925949
Sorry to go in this direction but too much ids too much
Peter, one small point, there was never any “Pink Batts Fiasco”.
Political witch hunt yes, fiasco no.
A – a B – big B -bag O – of T – taxes T – thieved.
As a (fairly ) recent immigrant to Australia from the UK, I find the concept of a ‘royal commission’ intriguing particularly because I am not aware of an equivalent in the ‘mother country’. Simplistically they seem to be raised by ALP government to examine ‘wrongdoing’, often systemic but established by LNP governments for point scoring purposes.
Am I wrong?
What we need is a royal commission into all tiers of government. There has been no end of corruption in local, state and federal politics but yet this is the second royal commission into unions in the recent past neither bringing forth anything of substance. The commissions are more in reality a attack on union credibilty in the eyes of the public a way to drive a wedge between the public and the workers so to speak. I think if its alright for unions to continually be put under the microscope it should be more than alright for the politicians (its called consistancy), but politicians would never want a royal commission digging into their interests -I’m sure these upstanding pillars of our society have nothing to hide…
My dad was killed in a workplace accident when I was little.
Sure, everyone rallied around and platitudes of “We’ll do everything we possibly can….”
Looking back, the union types should lament their shame and reflect those words were empty, meaningless and hollow. Ethical hedonism in full flight, it saved them embarrassment and was “the right thing to say at the time.”
No employer / union contact, no follow up or inkling of concern, my chronically depressed Mum and family fell off the face of the earth.
It’s disgusting to see the TWU set up funds to improve worker safety on the job. All former TWU execs have shat on the fatherless (Go read your good book Steve.)
4 your men dead, how is it for those families?
No fiasco Ross. 4 young men dead. 4 families forgotten. No fiasco Ross.
Imagine if it were someone you care about, then say that.
Unions are a shameful perversion and workers need to know that money paid in good faith is funding their nefarious parlour games.
Trevor it is a tragedy when any worker is killed in the work place, every one should have the right to return home from work at the end of the day. You have expressed your anger at the TWU for leaving you out in the cold -are you also angry at your father’s employer who failed to provide a safe working environment? I dont mean my comment to come across callous or insensitive. i just believe that employers should be held primarily responsible for the safety standards and cultures they promote and apply to their workplaces.
@ Mat = That was not the case in the 70’s. Many years later, I am angry with the union that amalgamated into the CFMEU (who funded a statue for dead miners, yet didn’t inform his children that was happening and it bore their father’s name. I read about it it the paper. They deserve a pat on the back for that!) I am also angry at the mine company that was purchased by Whitehaven coal. Yes, I am pathologically angry.
My mum was left as a widow with 4 children.
I commented here to express my on going anger. It’s very easy to mumble sentiments of sympathy and declare your on-going support.
The realities of living with the aftermath of a workplace accident are not what most people imagine.Just because people say the right things doesn’t mean they actually follow through
A truck driver gives money expecting it will do good for these families only to see their money spent on HSU elections.
They ALL need to take a long hard look at themselves. People need to be alerted to the absolute vulgarity of such deceit.
Peter – you say in relation to the current Royal Commission into trade unions that the only likely scalp so far is Kathy Jackson. Nominating Kathy Jackson as a likely “scalp” is, I think, a fair call. But other significant players in the Peter Mac money saga also have substantial questions to answer in relation to the Peter Mac money and might well find themselves caught up in the financial mire surrounding it. In particular, I refer to Dr Heather Wellington, the former Chair of PMCI, and Dr David Hillis, the former Chief Executive Officer of PMCI.
The Witness Statements of both Dr Wellington and Dr Hillis have recently become available on the Royal Commission website. However, the Statements appear to add little to what is already known about the circumstances surrounding the negotiation and eventual payment of $250,000 by PMCI to HSUA#3 in 2003. Indeed, the two Statements seem to raise more questions than they answer. More importantly, the Statements fail to provide a clear basis on which the possibility of the $250,000 payment being a secret commission can be discounted once and for all.
The Dr Heather Wellington Statement:
Dr Wellington has little definite recollection of key events concerning the $250,000 payment. One such key event is whether the PMCI Board was made aware of the Department of Human Services letter of “no support” regarding the “original proposal” to settle with HSUA#3. Dr Wellington is adamant the Board would not have approved the $250,000 payment to HSUA#3 had it known the Department did not support this action. In her Statement, Dr Wellington suggests three possible scenarios: (1) the Department reference to “original proposal” did not refer to the $250,000 payment but rather referred to other aspects of the overall settlement package; (2) the Board misunderstood the Department’s position despite reading it; or (3) the Board did not receive a copy of the Department’s letter of response.
The three possible scenarios offered by Dr Wellington are the obvious three a priori scenarios any objective observer would have come up with. But the really interesting, and important, question was not answered by Dr Wellington – which of the three possible scenarios applied to the PMCI Board in 2003?
Another key issue not illuminated by Dr Wellington’s Statement involves the question of disclosure to Research staff – were Research staff told about the $250,000 payment to HSUA#3? Board meeting minutes of the period clearly indicate it was the intention of the Board that the matter be disclosed to staff, but what was not, and is still not, clear was whether there was disclosure and, if it did occur, what form the disclosure took. As has now been confirmed by available documents, disclosure of the $250,000 payment was not made on the formal Deed of Release between PMCI and Research staff. This seems a strange omission given this would have been an obvious, and very efficient, method of disclosure to staff. Neither is there any evidence that the $250,000 payment was mentioned at the 4 September 2003 Research staff meeting attended by Dr Wellington and Kathy Jackson. Indeed, and despite her consistent emphasis on disclosure to staff, Dr Wellington did not mention the $250,000 payment in the speech she delivered at the staff meeting.
The Dr David Hillis Statement:
The transcript of testimony given by Dr David Hillis to the Royal Commission at a Private Hearing held on 14 August 2014 is now available on the Royal Commission website. Dr Hillis, it will be recalled, was PMCI Chief Executive Officer during the period the $250,000 payment to HSUA#3 was being negotiated and finalised. Dr Hillis settled the payment on 11 November 2003. He formally relinquished his position at PMCI on 14 November 2003 when he left to take up a senior appointment at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Several comments and observations can be made about the Dr Hillis transcript.
1. It is puzzling that Dr Hillis would refer to the Victorian Department of Human Services written response of “no support for the original proposal” as being “five seconds to midnight”. Contrary to what Dr Hillis appeared to say in his testimony, the first letter he sent to the Department on 15 May 2003 had NOT referred to any payment to the union let alone a specific payment of $250,000. The first and only time the $250,000 was mentioned is in the second letter Dr Hillis sent to the Department on 23 July 2003. The Department responded 9 days later on 1 August 2003. Furthermore, Dr Hillis does not appear to have made the Department aware of the urgency he obviously felt existed at the time he sent the second letter.
2. The Board sealed the Deed of Release between PMCI and HSUA#3 just over a month later on 9 September 2003. Five weeks can hardly be regarded as “five seconds to midnight”. There would have been ample opportunity for the Board to carefully consider the Department’s response and select an appropriate course of action.
3. There is a question mark over whether the Board saw the Department’s letter of response or not. Two broad possibilities exist. Either the Board saw (and discussed) the Department’s letter and chose to ignore its advice and subsequently approved the $250,000 payment. Or the Department’s letter was withheld from the Board by Dr Hillis and directors proceeded to approve the $250,000 payment.
4. It is clear from his testimony that neither Dr Hillis nor the Board sought to verify the accuracy of the itemised list of expenses Kathy Jackson sent PMCI on 22 October 2003. It appears that the Board merely authorised a large payment without carrying out reasonable and necessary due diligence.
5. The testimony of Dr Hillis does not shed light on how or why the PMCI Board established the $250,000 quantum in the first place. Kathy Jackson submitted a reimbursement claim for $252,679 only on 22 October 2003. Yet three months earlier, on 22 July 2003, the Board had resolved that a maximum limit of $250,000 be placed on the proposed payment to HSUA#3.
It is becoming more and more likely that Kathy Jackson will be asked to account for how she handled the $250,000 payment from PMCI. However, there are several matters about the Peter Mac money that still need to be investigated. Principal among these is the question of whether or not the payment was a secret commission. If the payment was a secret commission, then Kathy Jackson could not have acted alone in planning for, and executing, the arrangement. Someone from the PMCI side would also have been involved. And the among the people who could shed most light on precisely what occurred in 2003 would be (a) the nine member PMCI Board at the time, including Board Chair Dr Wellington; (b) PMCI Chief Executive Officer at the time, Dr David Hillis; and (c) the external Human Resources consultant who acted as PMCI’s “chief negotiator” with HSUA#3 during the period in question, Mr Brian Cook, Managing Director of Service Industry Advisory Group Pty Ltd.
Here’s something even more curious. According to the various statements and documents, the dedicated research staff were already prepared quite early on to roll over on the matter of backpay owing in order to make sure their colleagues didn’t in fact face redundancies that no doubt would have curtailed their important research and their careers in a field determined by external funding.
These people are dedicated to saving lives.
The matter of urgency Dr Hillis seems to refer to is in relation to the aggressive negotiations (that included a payment of 250K) by HSU#3.
It’s not like the cancer researchers were threatening to down microscopes….
That’s an excellent point, Duchy. Your comment certainly makes one wonder just what was the source of Dr Hillis’ feeling of urgency if it was not the Research staff. Perhaps Dr Hillis was feeling the pressure being exerted by Kathy Jackson and HSUA#3?
Another curiosity arising from Dr Wellington’s Statement is what Dr Wellington claims Kathy Jackson said at the Research staff meeting on 4 September 2003. According to Dr Wellington, Kathy Jackson said words to the following effect when addressing her members:
“We think you should be pursuing your entitlements, but, if you want to do this, then
the union will support you.”
This seems to contradict other publicly available evidence that suggests Kathy Jackson was instrumental, and took an early lead, in promoting the “no back pay” option to Research staff.