This week I received a response to my statement to the Trade Union Royal Commission and the evidence that I submitted along with it.
The full response can be seen by the link below, however there are a couple of things to note. Firstly that the evidence is being treated as a submission and will be used for the inquiry, and secondly that they have taken particular note of my evidence and statement in relation to what Katrina Hart said about me in her signed statement.
Royal Commission Correspondence re Submission
This could see Katrina Hart in a world of trouble as intentionally misleading a Royal Commission in a sworn statement is no light matter.
She might think twice before making statements without evidence from now on, but I doubt it.
Hart as some may be aware is running in the NSW HSU elections. For all of the support that Hart claimed she has she was unable to find enough supporters to put together a full ticket which most could take as an indication of how liberal she is with the truth.
In fact, so desperate was Hart to put together a full ticket she resorted to begging people she clearly doesn’t even know to run on her ticket with her. Below is a copy of a letter that she sent to several people in a failed bid to try to recruit them.
What is even more ironic is that Hart calls her ticket the “Clean Them Out” ticket. The truly bizarre thing about this is that it is unclear who she is trying to clean out.
You would assume she means cleaning out factional corruption. However Hart is backed by Kathy Jackson who as the Royal Commission is now discovering is possibly the most corrupt official an Australian Trade Union has ever seen.
So maybe she is talking about the faction formerly controlled by Michael Williamson? That would make far more sense, however looking at her ticket there are a few of Williamsons people on there. In fact one in particular is noteworthy.
Raymond Tait is on Harts ticket as a candidate for a senior position. This is the same Raymond Tait who acted as a personal reference for Michael Williamson as he was sentenced to jail for defrauding the same union members Hart wishes to represent.
Raymond Tait Reference For Michael Williamson
Perhaps she thought the best way to ensure Williamson’s friends were cleaned out was to see them put on a ticket sure to lose. Her own.
Hart & Jackson – Birds Of A Feather Or Just Dodo’s?
Hart has only recruited Tait onto her ticket so she can desperately try to win support from the ambulance service and paramedic sector, otherwise I’m sure she would be saying that he is another one that needs cleaning out…
I do not mean any of this as a criticism of Mr Tait, far from it.
I actually admire Ray Tait for having the guts to stand up and saying, he was Michael’s mate, and while he didn’t agree with what he did he appreciated his friendship. Such honesty within this union is refreshing. If others had half the guts of Raymond Tait the members would be better off.
Others within the union would appear to have used Williamson’s friendship to get ahead and then gutlessly denied being his mate later when the going got tough. Some of these people even played both sides in the factional battle, even recently.
Despite never having spoken to Mr Tait, I have to admire him for his honesty, which is more than I can say for many others, particularly Hart whose ticket he has strangely put himself on.
It would be both ironic and apt if Mr Tait was the only one on Harts ticket to be elected.
Ray Tait has also served as a councillor on Tamworth council and from everything I have read seems like the type of bloke the union members in NSW could rely on.
It is a shame he ended up on Harts ticket and didn’t go it alone.
However it is not just Katrina Hart that has been taking some desperate measures.
Over on Michael Smiths blog site things seem to have gone way past Jacksonville and have taken an extreme turn to the right and into a land that even David Lynch would find strange.
Michael Smith- Clouded Judgement?
Smith’s defence of all things Jackson has gone from the utterly ridiculous to the strangely bizarre.
One example of this was Smith’s post on the 14th of August which looked at the Peter Mac Hospital settlement with Jackson’s union branch relating to workers that had not been paid correctly by the Cancer Institute.
It must be a slap in the face for every cancer worker who heard about this ridiculous blog post as Smith seemed to be saying that Jackson had done a fantastic job in ensuring that the workers did not receive any of the money owed to them, and that Jackson had done the workers a huge service by negotiating with Peter Mac to ensure that they will be paid correctly in the future.
Peter Mac agreed to pay workers as they are entitled, what a breakthrough. Peter Mac agree to fulfil what is a legal obligation in the future, that Jackson must be one hell of a negotiator, worth every penny of that quarter million.
If you think I’m exaggerating, here’s what was at the end of Smith’s blog;
“Congratulations and well done to the Chairman of the Board Heather Wellington, the union led by Kathy Jackson and the researchers at the Peter Mac for negotiating that outcome!”
A great outcome indeed. The workers didn’t receive a dime while Jackson went shopping with a cool $250K.
However if you think that is strange, how about Smith comparing Kathy Jackson to Princess Diana? I’m not making this stuff up I swear…
Smith commented that having Jackson on the front page of newspapers must sell a lot of papers, just like having Princess Diana on the front page sells papers.
Newsflash Mike. Diana normally graces the front page of magazines like Women’s Weekly and New Idea, Jackson is more likely to be found on the cover of Women’s Prison Weekly or No Idea.
Other people who have graced the front page of newspapers have been Eddie Obeid, Rose West, Aileen Wuornos, Rolf Harris, Osama Bin Laden, and a string of NSW Liberals resigning after ICAC hearings, yet Smith doesn’t compare her with any of these people.
What’s next comparing Jackson with Mother Mary and Bolano with Jesus?
Maybe it’s not just Kathy Jacksons head in the clouds?
Smith’s blog site was also ridiculed for claims that the Royal Commission should have warned Jackson what she was to be questioned on. Like the Commission itself was behaving illegally.
If Jackson really believes she was ambushed, then she was ambushed by people wearing fluorescent vests with flashing lights on their heads being led by a marching band.
She knew she was to be questioned on the NHDA account when she took the witness stand, her decision not to seek legal assistance can only be based on her IQ and common sense, not the Commissions correspondence or lack of.
This is a Royal Commission, not a babysitter service.
Some of the recent blog posts on the Smith site many have suggested seemed to be written from a legal perspective which has prompted many to wonder whether Michael Lawler has added the part-time job of blogger to his CV. Maybe his approximate $400K taxpayer-funded position as Vice President of Fair Work Commission isn’t enough so he is blogging for Smith in his spare time?
If this is the case then it raises all kinds of conflict of interest questions.
Can the government really sit back while the Vice President of the Industrial Relations watchdog accuses a Royal Commission of breaches of the Royal Commissions Act?
If Lawler were found to have written these blogs it would destroy the integrity of the Fair Work Commission, and threaten to make a complete mockery of the Royal Commission.
One thing that Smiths site has done is show us that Jackson’s supporters are really clutching at straws when it comes to their defence of her. After all how does one defend the indefensible?
One thing is for sure, the week starting on the 25th at the Royal Commission is going to be interesting indeed.
Interesting, strange and undoubtedly bizarre.
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
Follow @madwixxy
Clutching at straws indeed,I read some
where last week that Jackson said all the claims made against are all now irrelivent as the four year time limit to lay charges has passed,Is this woman for real .How far back did the claimes that she made against thomson go.
I’m glad in your post you spoke about Ray Tait, I agree he is a very honourable person and has intregity, it is a shame he had to align himself with Hart. As to your other comment re: others who were friends/great mates of Williamson to get ahead and people who attended many family events as a very close ” friend” and now deny that close connection.. Maybe you should look closer at the current leadership of HSU.. Just saying….
I agree Karma. Gerard Hayes and his partner were happy to partake in the lavish lifestyle of Williamson; dinners at their home, weekends at the holiday home frequently and invitees to the glamour wedding of the decade. He equally enjoyed the hospitality of Jackson and Lawler during his Victoria stint. Both sides of the bread I say – never questioning the ‘millionaire lifestyle’ of either? Perhaps questions should be asked…..just saying
What really disturbs me is the number of people being put off ever joining a union. This one episode will contribute significantly to the decline of union membership as it makes his way into the urban legend/mythology around unions. It stinks and Cathy Jackson has no place in any union. Ever.
“It is normal for people to hold a range of opinions about things, some of those opinions in diametric opposition to each other. I might see money in a union slush fund as unequivocally being union-members’ money. A person schooled in the ways of the Labor/union complex might see a fine and truthful distinction between “Members Money” (ie money sourced from the pockets of members) and sundry other funds often known as “Boss’s Money”. A person in those circumstances might speak wholly truthfully informed by a belief that a resolution of the union’s Branch Committee of Management is sufficient authority to transfer a slab of money from the “Members’ Money” general accounts into a slush fund, to be applied for whatever Labor/union complex purpose de jour takes the leadership’s fancy. None of those differences of opinion necessarily entails dishonesty.”
A person schooled in fine satire might mistake the above for an amusing, sardonic, tongue in cheek parody of an argument used by an erudite and venal thief and scoundrel. Apparently not. Apparently it has been composed with a view that it be taken seriously. Oh dear.