Charity shags, turbo spa’s in the Red Room brothel, and judicial gang-rapes.

An alternate universe for most of us, but just another day for Kathy Jackson.

Fridays Royal Commission hearings into the HSU had been a boring affair, particularly given the outlandish events the previous dayhowever things certainly turned from mundane to insane when Kathy Jackson stopped for a doorstop chat with the press with her shadow Marco Bolano.

Mark Irving must have been scratching his head when Jackson referred to him as a charity shag, saying;

“Forget the former lover stuff. Everybody makes mistakes and has a charity shag along the way.”

Actually Kathy, not everybody does.

Jackson’s own affidavit states that the affair lasted eight weeks, which seems more than charitable to me.

The judicial gang-rape comment is highly insulting and offensive on so many levels and is a comment that shines a spotlight on the character of this extremely hostile witness.

Most of those reading this will remember Craig Thomson’s address to parliament which was written off by most as conspiracy theory. One of the most alarming claims was that he had been threatened by Marco Bolano that they were going to destroy him by setting him up with hookers.

This claim was ridiculed by virtually everyone in the media, and Christophe Pyne even went to the effort of putting and passing a parliamentary apology through parliament for defaming his character.

Those who still think that this is a ridiculous claim may want to listen to the sound file below that was recorded at the doorstop interview on Friday.

Brad Norington is a senior and extremely well-respected journalist from The Australian. He is also the quintessential family man.

For Jackson and Bolano to throw accusations of him being in a brothel is ludicrous. To have him in that brothel with Craig Thomson is madness. To have the two of them in the brothel after a lunch with Michael Williamson is just sheer insanity.

Nobody took the claim seriously at all, however this public outburst and accusation would make even the country’s biggest sceptic look at Thomson’s claims in a whole new light.

The motive behind it is obvious, Norington is one of a handful of journalists that have a thorough understanding of the HSU case and is able in his articles to provide the context behind the Jackson spin. To Jackson and her supporters this is a threat, as they would rather have reporters who will only run with her distraction tactics, rather than what they seek to distract us from.

However these were not the only ridiculous things that Jackson told the press at her remarkable doorstop press conference.

Spitting venom outside the Royal Commission

Spitting venom outside the Royal Commission

Jackson was quick to tell the press that she believes that all unions should be investigated for the slush funds she says they run, and the way they fund election campaigns. All unions except hers of course.

Jackson was asked what she would like to see come out of this Royal Commission and her first response was to make union officials accountable.

This is comical when we see just how uncooperative she has been with both the Federal Court and the Royal Commission. It is clear that she refuses to be accountable at all, one standard for her and another for everyone else it seems. That is why we are witnessing the circus we are watching now.

Jackson also talks a lot about Mr Irving, the HSU National offices barrister. She refers to him as a combatant, and as “having skin in the game”. She talks about him as if he has been a major part of the scandal.

These HSU legal matters have been going on for years, all the time with Mark Irving representing the HSU National Office, however Jackson has not mentioned him previously. Suddenly as he is about to cross-examine her Jackson suddenly wants to portray him as the centre of the HSU universe.

At one stage in the interview a reporter asks;

“Point blank, you did not corruptly use member’s funds to travel to America?”

Her answer started out “Point blank no”. She then tells the press that her BCOM had approved the funds.

These apparent BCOM approved funds equate to $80,000 of union members funds, which were transferred into an account that was “off-line”, unregulated, and unaudited. The exact type of account that BCOM member Reuben Dixon testified just days earlier he would not approve of members funds being transferred into. No records exist of the approval of this transfer as all of the copies of the minutes of this meeting are missing.

Jackson claimed most of this expense was down to attending Harvard for a Trade Union course, remember we are talking about $80,000.

Today the course is more expensive than it was in 2004, and it now costs a grand total of $14,000. That also includes accommodation, text books, and class materials. The only extra expenses listed that may be incurred are;

“Additional expenses include transportation to and from Boston, meals, laundry, recreation and incidentals.”

So going off these numbers which are higher than 2004, where did the other $66,000 of members funds evaporate to.

Kathy said her memory was vague, but Jeff may have popped over for a week, although the members didn’t pay for that.

As you may recall Kathy has also testified that once members money left the union account and entered hers it was no longer union members money. So I guess she has an extra $66,000 windfall of “her” money to dip into, perhaps for trips to Cuba and Mexico.

Jeff and a Cuban

Jeff and a Cuban

 

Funny hats in Harvard

Funny hats in Harvard

For what was a six week course, Kathy spent $11,000 a week with the change from her course it would seem.

One of the funniest things that Jackson claims is that it was Chris Brown causing the distraction that the last two days became, due to his choice of Barrister that he has been using for the last two years.

Brown did not file an application to have Irving taken off cross-examination, Jackson did. Brown did not write a lengthy affidavit describing his past sex life, Jackson did. Brown did not go out to the press talking about charity shags, Jackson did.

At the end of the recording that is below, you will hear Jackson being asked if she has ever used a union slush fund for personal purposes. Jackson answers with a firm “No”.

So who was spending NHDA money at JB Hi Fi and David Jones then, or does Kathy not think the NHDA account is a slush fund now?

I wonder if she will ever put together a straight story.

I won’t be holding my breath waiting.

 

Shirts Ad pic

 

 

 

 

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

 

 

 

 

 

 

For All Your Video Production Needs

For All Your Video Production Needs

29 thoughts on “Virtual Insanity – Kathy Jacksons bizarre press conference

  1. The biggest own goal since Royal Commissions got started and it couldn’t happen to a nicer thief.

  2. I’m so glad all the sordid details are at last becoming known outside the Peter Wicks fan club.

    She must have had full confidence in friends in very high places when she started her ‘whistle blower’ act, which leaves me with the horrible feeling that she’ll get away with it in the end.

  3. Kathy Jackson is a criminal and she’s insane. I can not believe that anyone is supporting her. The woman is nuts and she’s a criminal!

  4. Apologies for my ignorance, but did she not apply for and receive a scholarship to attend Harvard as did Craig Thomson. If so does that mean it should cost the members nothing bar the airfare and a few incidentals. Perhaps you can check out details Wixxy…….Craig Thomson would surely know how this works.

  5. LeftLeaningLifter – Then we have to make sure she doesn’t get away with it. Public pressure is a remarkable thing. there are many in the public sphere that want to see justice done for the members and if anything the members should be rallying the new president or officials to ensure justice is done. I think the leaders of the HSU should put a vote out or put a case to make her accountable and try to recover some monies. (I believe they are currently trying, but I hope they don’t ever give up)

    One thing I have noticed over this saga is that people like wikileaks or Snowden are the worst whistle blowers on the face of the earth. They are ridiculed, made to look like criminals and yet they are mostly clean, doing a public service, etc. Then we have Jackson with all of the allegations out there, her hand are allegedly dirty, and yet she is regarded as a heroin by Abbott and the MSM.

    Just goes to show who you can trust and it is not this government or most if not nearly all of the MSM.

  6. Pete, Is Brad Norington going to do a story on the accusation? Have you contacted him about the allegations?

    Could be fun.

  7. Jackson talks about Williamson and Brown sitting on information for several months to serve their own purpose. Did she not sit on information brought to her about corruption concerns in NSW for over a decade to serve her own purpose.

    Kathy, the planets are aligning, Jacksonville is entering planet earth, fasten your seatbelt, prepare for brace position, this will be the landing from hell.

  8. I am more concerned about the funds slushing around in the Liberal Party. Of particular concerns is the ones that Abbott himself was connected to. Even set up I believe.

  9. I’m still trying to figure out why someone would want a “Charity Shag” with Kathy Jackson. Can she suck the skin off a rice pudding from 50ft? Because all I see is someone who, when she opens her legs, a light comes on. Being so cold as she is.

  10. I think it is beyond question that Kathy Jackson is a most peculiar individual. What she and her equally peculiar supporters fail to realise is how utterly ridiculous her explanations sound to an objective observer. The $250,000 payment by the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute (PMCI) to Kathy Jackson’s HSU No.3 Branch provides a good case in point. Kathy Jackson told the Royal Commission (under oath) that (a) the money received did not belong to the Union, and (b) the money did not belong to her in her capacity as a private individual. But does Kathy Jackson’s sworn testimony make any sense?

    If the $250,000 Peter Mac money was “outside the Union”, if it was not union funds and if it did not belong to Kathy Jackson, then whose money was it? And if the money was “outside the Union”, why was it necessary for Kathy Jackson to periodically seek authorisation from the BCOM to spend the money? If the money was “outside the Union”, it would seem that Kathy Jackson should have had the discretion to expend the money as and when, and on whatever, she saw fit. She would have had no need to seek prior permission from anyone, or give an account to anyone, regarding how the money was acquitted.

    And why was it even necessary for Kathy Jackson to record details of what would clearly have been private transactions in a private journal exercise book (now missing)? Who records private transactions in a private journal, anyway? This seems to be a most unusual activity for a person to engage in. It was also interesting to hear Kathy Jackson opine that the reason the exercise book went missing was because some of the details it contained would prove embarrassing to certain (unnamed ) persons. But why would such details be embarrassing? If all disbursements made from the Peter Mac money after it had been transferred into the NHDA bank account established by Kathy Jackson were above board, were authorised by the HSU No.3 BCOM and were strictly applied to further the interests of union members, why on earth would anyone find the details embarrassing? Of course, there is also the supplementary issue of why Kathy Jackson did not see fit to record NHDA disbursements in a second exercise book once she discovered the first exercise book had gone missing. It seems that subsequent payments out of the Peter Mac money went completely unrecorded. Why was this?

    It is patently ridiculous to think the Peter Mac money ended up belonging to nobody and with Kathy Jackson merely being the person who controlled the funds via a bank account she had established and for which she was the sole signatory. Logically, the funds must always have belonged to either the Union or Kathy Jackson. It has to be one or the other – there can be no other possibilty. If the funds belonged to the Union, then they should never have been funnelled into a privately control bank account. On the other hand, if the funds were donated to Kathy Jackson in her capacity as a private individual, then they would have taken on the character of assessable income in her hands, and Kathy Jackson should have declared the amounts received as income in her personal tax returns. And Kathy Jackson admitted under oath that she did not declare payments she received from the Peter Mac money as assessable income in her personal tax returns.

  11. I believe Thomson went on a scholarship, I will check out about her

  12. I think Ms Jackson may find her political contacts abandon her as a hot potato in time honoured fashion.
    It’s VicPol who bother me. Their actions over Craig Thomson, despite his conviction, were pretty nasty. Like the QLD police they seem very ant-“left” and run with the right.

  13. Perhaps it was a HSU no 3 branch scholarship awarded by herself, to herself, from the all purpose unaudited fund, held in her own name, for which she was sole signatory, all with the blessing and approval of the simple souls who were her admiring committee of management not one of whom actually saw any reason to require that she actually tell them what she was spending union funds on and who were not all concerned that she also had a drawer full of blank cheques to be used at her discretion in the best interests of the members. Just like the honorarium paid to herself by herself from the all purpose fund…… etc

  14. I still think Thomson was set up by this dreadful woman and I hope Craig gets some justice. I think Jackson’s biggest threat will be the Peter Mac scientists and technicians who were unaware that their loss was her windfall. I don’t think they will cave in and will go after her. Let’s hope.

  15. Clown herder, the whole matter of the Peter Mac money is riddled with (legitimate) questions. During her initial appearance before the Royal Commission, Kathy Jackson testified (under oath) that the $250,000 received from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute (PMCI) was a fine or penalty imposed on the hospital in light of the $3.16 million underpaid wages (plus $900,000 salary on costs) to PMCI research staff.

    In a subsequent appearance before the Royal Commission, Kathy Jackson agreed (under oath) that the $250,000 payment was not a fine or penalty, but was instead the reimbursement of HSU No.3 Branch legal and other costs – both past and future – that related to negotiating the Deed of Release document pursuant to which the $250,000 amount had been paid. It should be remembered that one outcome of the Deed of Release was that PMCI would not be required to pay its research staff the $4.06 million total owed as underpayment of wages.

    And during her third appearance before the Royal Commission, Kathy Jackson admitted (under oath) that the cost reimbursements she had claimed from PMCI had been grossly and knowingly over-inflated. For instance, Jackson had claimed reimbursement of $67,470 for work done by Slater & Gordon but agreed with Jeremy Stoljar that the actual amount charged by Slater & Gordon had been only $1,122. She also agreed (under oath) that the expected future costs of $89,460 claimed from the PMCI did not reflect a true claim for expected future costs. Kathy Jackson further agreed with Counsel Assisting that she had knowingly and falsely over-inflated claimed reimbursements “to bring the total of the amount claimed to an amount in excess of, if only a small amount in excess of, $250,000”. In short, the $250,000 was not a reimbursement for legal and other costs incurred by the HSU No.3 Branch.

    What Kathy Jackson’s conflicting (and arguably false and misleading) evidence under oath before the Royal Commission points to is a huge question over the nature of the $250,000 Peter Mac money. If the money was not a fine or penalty imposed on the hospital, and if it was not reimbursement of union legal and other costs, then what on earth was it? One possibility, that cannot be rejected out of hand, is that the payment represented a secret commission negotiated between PMCI and the HSU No.3 Branch. If particular explanations are ruled out then, logically, certain others must be ruled in.

    Whether or not the $250,000 was a secret commission is matter yet to be established. But two particular matters are of interest in this regard. The first is that someone had to have initially come up with the idea of the $250,000 payment – was it the hospital or was it the union? The second matter of interest concerns the then Chair of the PMCI Board, Dr Heather Wellington. Dr Wellington was a prominent member of the Australian Labor Party at the time. Indeed, she was an ALP Councillor for the City of Greater Geelong in Victoria. Furthermore, a mere two months after the Deed of Release had been sealed and the $250,000 paid in November 2003, Dr Wellington attended the 43rd ALP National Conference in January 2004 as a Victorian delegate. Also attending the same conference as a Victorian delegate was Jeff Jackson, then Victorian State Secretary of the HSU, and then husband of Kathy Jackson.

    Now at least two questions seem to arise from the above facts. First, what was the relationship between Dr Heather Wellington, Chair of the PMCI Board and Jeff Jackson, Victorian State Secretary of the HSU? How well did these two persons know each other? Second, and perhaps more importantly, did Dr Wellington declare a potential conflict of interest to her fellow Board members regarding her ALP affiliations and her association with Jeff Jackson and, through him, Kathy Jackson?

  16. I can’t see the sound file, but here is a video of the same event for anyone who likes watching body language. The more I see of Bolano, the more I believe Craig Thomson’s claim against him.

  17. Mind boggling, she truly defies belief.

    My primary amazement stems from what appears to be her complete oblivion to the thought train that if she attacks everyone else, lays blame all around, that none of her associates will turn to defend themselves via mauling her & exposing her financial / personal conduct..

    This woman may fear exposure and punishment, but she is currently committing professional suicide as no doubt there’s plenty out there preparing documents & statements should they be invited to attend the Commission.

    I for one am loving the show, cant wait to see what she does next. Because sooner or later I anticipate the words “Christopher Pyne” will erupt from her mouth. Probably during her attempting justification over her hypocritical attacks on Thommo.

    Great work Wixxy, since I cant watch the RC I read you’re updates every chance I get.

  18. I never really felt comfortable with Craig Thompson’s conviction, something didn’t ring true. I couldn’t believe someone could be so stupid. But after watching this woman and her cohorts during the turc all I can say there’s something rotten in Denmark. She is a very scary person and I would hate to cross her. Thinking,,, horses head in your bed type character. Mr. Thompson’s appeal comes up soon it will be very interesting.

  19. JB raises many reasoned points. One supposes the CEO of the Peter Mac and the board members of the time will be questioned by authorities as to their understanding, if any of this “settlement”.

  20. Thank you, Duchy. I have more to come in the next day or so – provided Peter lets it through! 🙂

  21. What surprised me most is that Kathy was able to remember so much detail surrounding her fling with Mr Irving – such as that he lived near the cemetery in Carlton and had a barbers’ chair in his living room, even though this all took place 21 years ago. And yet she cannot recall the purpose of $50,000 withdrawals that she signed off on; events which occurred in recent years. Nor can she recall if her children accompanied her on her $80,000 trip to America.

    I’ll say this for her though, she is certainly a very interesting character. I can see why she is so well liked by some people, she is charismatic, has some degree of intelligence (although she is not so smart for thinking she can keep giving silly, nonsensical responses to questions in court and at the Royal Commission – she is not on Paul Murray Live now!), and she is very personable.

    Kathy Jackson’s closeness to all the main characters in this, to me, implies that she is an extremely ambitious person who is prepared to use people, particularly men, to get what she wants. Looking at her past and present relationships – her once close friendship with Williamson, her marriage to Jeff Jackson, her current relationship with Michael Lawler, her lapdog/standover man Marco Bolano, her ties with the Liberal party – so it was no surprise to hear her affidavit detailing her previous liaison with Mr Irving. Possibly at the time, 21 years ago, she thought that she could use him for something but then maybe thought better of it as he was only a young lawyer back then, with no power in the HSU at that time.

    The one thing that has me totally baffled though all this is why would anyone be employed on a salary of $270,000 + expenses (gym membership, etc) + high end company car (the volvo) when they have such a shocking memory involving large transactions of money that they where in control of and who used an exercise book to record all these transactions, which they ended up losing anyway, why????????? Surely there are more competent people out there?

  22. Kathy Jackson’s credibility has been at the very least, severely tarnished. She was a key witness in a court case – Craig Thomson’s. Dare I say there is argument for that case to now be thrown out.

  23. “Mr. Thompson’s appeal comes up soon it will be very interesting.”
    That’s Mr Thomson and it never has been interesting to date. They can’t introduce new evidence at the appeal (as I understand), although there might have been some skulduggery in terms of changing the charge which might be a strong legalistic appeals ground, but not earth-shattering.

    Can I just say that I was in the turbo spa in the Red Room with Thomson, Williamson and Norrington. And I think I espied Peter Wixs there as well having a natter with Harold Holt in a dim corner. And just in case Peter was thinking of issuing any denials I will just say “leopold skin speedos” and leave it at that

  24. “Virtually insane”, or cruel and calculating?

    The whistleblower act was a clever was to distract attention from her activities, but the pea has fallen out of it. Now she’s throwing grenades.

    If it looks like she might be called to justice, I’m sure she already has an escape plan arranged… Somewhere in Majorca, there’s an O2 bottle with Kathy’s name on it.

  25. In a previous submission to the Wixxyleaks, I commented on the possibility that the $250,000 payment in 2003 made by the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute (PMCI) to Kathy Jackson’s Health Services Union of Australia No.3 branch ( HSUA#3) might have been a secret commission. I arrived at this conclusion following Kathy Jackson’s contradictory (and arguably false and misleading) sworn testimony at the Royal Commission during her various recent appearances before Commissioner Heydon.
    During her attendance before the Royal Commission, Ms Jackson was eventually compelled to acknowledge (a) that contrary to her earlier evidence given under oath, the $250,000 was not a fine or penalty imposed on PMCI, and (b) that, again contrary to her earlier evidence given under oath, the $250,000 payment did not represent reimbursement of HSUA#3 legal and other costs both past and future. In light of Ms Jackson’s seemingly reluctant admissions, I suggested it was reasonable to ponder the true nature of the $250,000 payment. If the $250,000 paid by PMCI to HSUA#3 was not a fine or penalty imposed on the Hospital, and if it was not reimbursement of Union legal and other costs, then what on earth was it? I submitted one possibility was that the $250,000 payment represented a secret commission.

    I also pointed out in my previous commentary that a number of important questions ought to be asked in relation to the then Chair of the PMCI Board, Dr Heather Wellington. Dr Wellington was a prominent member of the Australian Labor Party at the time. Indeed, she was an ALP Councillor for the City of Greater Geelong in Victoria. Furthermore, a mere two months after the Deed of Release had been sealed and the $250,000 paid in November 2003, Dr Wellington attended the 43rd ALP National Conference in January 2004 as a Victorian delegate. Also attending the same conference as a Victorian delegate was Jeff Jackson, then Victorian State Secretary of the HSU, and then husband of Kathy Jackson. At least two questions seem to arise from these facts. First, what was the relationship between Dr Heather Wellington, Chair of the PMCI Board and Jeff Jackson, Victorian State Secretary of the HSU? How well did these two persons know each other? Second, and perhaps more importantly, did Dr Wellington declare a potential conflict of interest to her fellow Board members regarding her ALP affiliations and her association with Jeff Jackson and, through him, Kathy Jackson?

    Coincidentally, the day after my comments were published, an article appeared The Sunday Age (Royce Millar and Ben Schneiders, August 31 2104) that questioned the level of knowledge possessed by PMCI Board members at the time the $250,000 was being negotiated and approved. One 2003 Board member, John Patterson, was reported as saying the Board was not aware of the proposal to pay money to the HSU and that any such payment “wasn’t right”. Another 2003 Board member, Noala Flynn, was reported as saying she had no recollection of a payment to the union. Still a third 2003 Board member, Sue Carter, was reported as saying she recalled nothing about such a payment and was “completely in the dark” about a written warning from the Victoria Department of Health Services that the proposed payment would not be supported by the Department.

    Although by no means definitive, these knowledge denials by former PMCI Board members strengthen the case that investigation is warranted as to whether PMCI did, or did not, negotiate, approve and pay a $250,000 secret commission to Kathy Jackson’s HSUA#3. Any such investigation would need to examine in detail the events of the time. A selection of key and relevant events is shown below in the form of a timeline. The information presented has been gleaned from publicly available materials and documents. The timeline is predicated on the basis that every touch leaves its trace.

    Background information:

    The events surrounding the conception, negotiation, approval and disbursement the $250,000 payment made by PMCI to HSUA#3 occurred during the second half of the 2003 financial year and the first half of the 2004 financial year. That is to say, the events occurred during the period March 2003 to November 2003. The composition of the nine-member PMCI Board of Directors during the period in question was as follows:

    Dr Heather Wellington (Chair)
    Rev Alan Nichols (Deputy Chair)
    Ms Noala Flynn
    Ms Margaret (Judy) Hogg
    Mr John Patterson OAM
    Ms Heather Scovell
    Dr Stephen Vaughan
    Ms Sue Carter
    Mr Martin Smith (appointed 1 July 2003)

    While the PMCI Board was primarily responsible for making the $250,000 payment to HSUA#3, proper regard must be had for the key part played by one other important individual – the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of PMCI at the time, Dr David Hillis. Accordingly, relevant events pertaining to Dr Hillis are also located on the timeline below.

    Timeline of selected events relevant to the $250,000 payment ;

    January 2001 Dr David Hillis takes up the position of CEO at PMCI

    Early March 2003 HSUA#3 informs PMCI about the underpayment of Research staff at the hospital. Back pay of $3.16 million plus $0.9 million payroll on costs making a potential financial liability totalling $4.06 million.

    11 March 2003 At a scheduled Board meeting, the directors of PMCI discuss the implications of the underpayment of Research staff. They recommend applying to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to have the existing Award corrected. Directors also note the financial threat posed by the underpayment to PMCI’s long term research capability.

    21 March 2003 A Memorandum of Understanding between PMCI and HSUA#3 is signed by the “Acting CEO” on behalf of PMCI and by Kathy Jackson on behalf of HSUA#3. The Memorandum signals the development of a new Award for PMCI Research staff, but makes no mention of any proposed payment by PMCI to HSUA#3. Clause 6 of the Memorandum states:

    “The parties agree not to instigate any claims for retrospective payment for pay and conditions arising from the application of the MX Award.”

    (The MX Award refers to the 1999 Award under which the underpayment od Research staff had taken place.)

    14 April 2003 At a scheduled Board meeting, the directors of PMCI are updated on developments, principally the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding / Heads of Agreement between PMCI and HSUA#3.

    12 May 2003 HSUA#3 solicitors, Slater & Gordon, send Kathy Jackson a detailed legal opinion on the breach of employment conditions and underpayment of wages by PMCI. The letter also outlines the advantages and disadvantages of various legal avenues that could be pursued by Union members who have been underpaid.

    15 May 2003 Dr Hillis writes to the Victorian Department of Human Services informing the Department of the underpayment situation and the circumstances leading up to it. The letter contains details of a proposed new Award for Research staff, but makes no mention of a proposed cash payment to HSUA#3.

    8 July 2003 At a scheduled Board meeting, Dr Hillis delivers a confidential briefing to directors recommending acceptance of a Deed of Release “in full and final settlement with the HSUA#3 in relation to the underpayment of Research staff”. He also recommends that directors approve the expenditure of up to $250,000 to reflect “the true union costs associated in achieving approval of the Certified Agreement at the Australian Industrial Relations Commission”. Dr Hillis’s briefing paper states:

    “The outstanding issue is the Deed of Release (final version attached 5) and the payment to HSUA#3, in respect to their legal costs and time impost on senior officials. That this payment be made as a ‘one-off’ payment with no ongoing arrangements.”

    The directors of PMCI subsequently resolve that negotiations should continue with HSUA#3 regarding the quantum of union expenses incurred as a result of negotiations over the underpayment of wages. The Board also resolves that the option of PMCI paying those expenses should continue to be explored with the Union. The question of disclosing a possible contingent liability in the PMCI 2003 financial accounts is also raised at the meeting.

    22 July 2003 At a Special Board meeting, the directors of PMCI resolve that negotiations should continue with HSUA#3 regarding a $250,000 (maximum) payment by PMCI for reimbursement of Union expenses. The Board imposes two conditions on any such payment: (1) an itemised statement of costs must first be received from HSUA#3, and (2) PMCI Research staff must be notified about any proposed payment to the Union.

    23 July 2003 Dr Hillis writes a second letter to the Victorian Department of Human Services in which he notifies the Department of the $250,000 payment proposal. The letter refers to earlier “recent discussions”. Dr Hillis tells the Department:

    ”There is significant momentum behind these initiatives and HSUA#3 have indicated we need to progress on the Deed of Release by 24 July 2003. The Board of Peter Mac met in an extraordinary meeting on Tuesday 22 July to clarify outstanding concerns. It resolved that we will continue with this approach unless we hear from the Department of Human Services to the contrary.”

    1 August 2003 The Victorian Department of Human Services replies to Dr Hillis’s letter of 23 July 2003. The Departmental response contains the following:

    “The Department believes that it is in PMCI’s best interest to achieve an outcome that secures its financial and legal exposure to pay back payment recovery action and cannot support the original proposal presented.”

    12 August 2003 At a scheduled Board meeting, the directors of PMCI were advised that if the Hospital was to pay $3.1 million in underpaid wages plus a further $0.9 million for salary on-costs, this would require redundancies of up to 38 equivalent fulltime staff. This would have a serious impact on the viability of Research at PMCI. The Board resolved that PMCI management continue to negotiate with HSUA#3 in order to settle the matter, and that the Department of Human Services be advised of progress made.

    29 August 2003 PMCI Corporate Secretary, Mr Les Manson, writes to Hospital insurers outlining the general underpayment situation, and signalling a “no back pay in return for no redundancies” agreement between the Hospital and the Union. Mr Manson asks the insurers whether costs arising from resolving the matter with the Union can be claimed under the Hospital’s insurance cover:

    “Peter Mac and the HSUA#3 have incurred substantial expenditure for legal advice, Human Resource advice, additional staff resources and other costs in resolution of this situation. I would appreciate your advice as to whether the cost of resolving this matter, i.e., legal costs, HR advice and resourcing, etc, can be met under the guideline principles of the Public Healthcare Insurance Program.”

    (The response of the Hospital’s insurers does yet appear to be on the public record. However, in light of subsequent events, it seems reasonable to suppose the answer would have been “no”.)

    9 September 2003 At a scheduled Board meeting, the directors of PMCI give approval that the Hospital Seal to be affixed to Deed of Release authorising the payment of $250,000 to HSUA#3. At the meeting, the Board is advised that, five days earlier on 4 September, a presentation had been made to Research staff by Board Chair Dr Heather Wellington, HSUA#3 State Secretary Kathy Jackson and the HSUA#3 Industrial Officer, Ms Cresshull. The advice given to the Board signalled that the Deed of Release between PMCI and HSUA#3 had been discussed at the 4 September meeting, but the advice gave no specific indication that the proposed $250,000 had also been discussed.

    9 September 2003 The Deed of Release between PMCI and HSUA#3 is signed by the Chair, Dr Heather Wellington, the Deputy Chair, the Rev. Alan Nichols, on behalf of PMCI and by Kathy Jackson on behalf of HSUA#3.

    9 September 2003 The Victorian Auditor General issues an unqualified audit report covering the PMCI financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2003. Note 25 to the accounts discloses a contingent liability of $3.104 million. The amount is described as “legal proceedings and disputes”.

    October 2003 Dr Hillis tenders his resignation to the PMCI Board, stating his intention to depart in November 2003 in order to take up the position of Executive General Manager at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Mrs Wendy Wood appointed acting CEO for six months from November 2003.

    22 October 2003 Secretary of HSUA#3, Kathy Jackson, submits a written itemised statement to Dr Hillis listing the Union’s legal expenses and other expenses (including expected future expenses) incurred “in relation to the matters”. The Union expenses totalled $252, 679.

    11 November 2003 Dr Hillis sends Kathy Jackson a cheque for $250,000 “in accordance with paragraph 1 (b) of the Deed of Release”.

    November 2003 Dr Hillis leaves PMCI to take up his new position at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Mrs Wendy Wood, General Manager of Surgical Oncology, is appointed Acting Chief Executive Officer for six months.

    24 May 2004 PMCI newly appointed Chief Executive Officer, Craig Bennett, takes up his position.

    27 August 2014 Dr David Hillis is listed to give evidence before the Royal Commission. Dr Hillis provides email notification that he is currently overseas and is unable to appear. But his Statutory Declaration dated 21 August 2014 is received into evidence by Commissioner Heydon.

  26. Very interesting timeline JB. To this evidence of a possible secret commission can be added the sworn evidence of Dr Rosemary Kelly now available on the TURC website. She asserts false evidence on a number of counts by Ms Jackson, and further adds to the feeling that the $250,000 payment to HSU#3 was “secret” as she only learned of it in April 2014, despite the fact that as Secretary of HSU#4 she had had discussions with Kathy Jackson about the underpayment of staff in 2003. Indeed, it appears Dr Kelly was the union official who first made Ms Jackson of the underpayment of HSU#3 members, in around February 2003, but Dr Kelly had no “power” to agitate on behalf of these members, coming from a different branch membership.

    http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Transcripts/Documents/Evidence29August2014/RosemaryKellyStatement.pdf

  27. Oh, and JB, for further interesting reading on whether the PM board saw the letter from the Dept of Human Services which refused to support the $250,000 payment, you might like to pursue Dr Wellington’s statement.

    http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Transcripts/Documents/Evidence29August2014/WellingtonStatement.pdf

    I understand Dr Hillis the CEO has made a statement to the commission, not yet published, and may still be abroad.

    I also note after perusing the PM documents that a “root cause analysis” of the HR debacle that allowed the underpayment to go undetected for so long was ordered by the board, but this analysis, if it was indeed done, and one presumes it would have been to satisfy the Hospital’s insurer’s (particularly since they had been notified) is not publicly available.

    It is curious that HSU#3, who also did not detect the underpayment until Dr Kelly stumbled on it having undertaken investigations for a HSU#4 member moving to the research division, were able to “profit” from their own “negligence” to the tune of a $250,000 whilst ensuring that not only their members didn’t receive any back pay, but they signed away their rights to pursue said back pay.

    Of course, that may yet be a moot point, if the basis of the whole agreement was not legal in the first place. I would not be surprised to see further activity happening in this realm in coming months.

Leave a Reply