Those of you familiar with the Trade Union Royal Commission would be familiar with the name Michael Smith.
Michael Smith has been at the forefront of the so-called “AWU Scandal” that those with agenda’s claim leaves former PM Julia Gillard with some serious questions to answer.
Some of you may also remember Gillard stood in a room full of journalists and said she was going to stand there and answer any question on the conspiracy theories until all questions were exhausted. This she did and when the questions ran dry, she went back to her job of running the country.
Despite the conspiracy theories turning up nothing that has had any real clout or shown anything that looks like creating mud that will stick to Gillard it has been relentlessly pushed by Michael Smith via his website and others within the right-wing media.
At the Royal Commission when the matter was aired it really raised no new questions that implicated Gillard in any way. However the question as to why Bruce Wilson’s witness statement had been so heavily censored, or some have suggested tampered with, by the Commission has raised not only eyebrows but many questions involving the integrity of the Commission itself, something that I addressed in an open letter to Peter Reith after a column he wrote on the subject appeared in Fairfax media.
The man who has led the charge against Gillard in the AWU affair is a man by the name of Bob Kernohan. Kernohan is someone who has clearly worked closely with Smith and the two of them would have appeared to most as having a close relationship.
Bob Kernohan
Bob Kernohan is also a former president of the Australian Workers Union and it is fair to say he has not been impressed with how things have been run in his absence, just like Malcolm Fraser isn’t over the moon with the running of the Liberal Party today.
It is also quite apparent that given Michael Smith has invested much of his reputation in the AWU matter and been at the forefront of calling for a Royal Commission to investigate his and Kernohans claims that he would seem to have a huge amount of faith and trust in Mr Kernohan and his views.
Michael Smith has also been a huge supporter of Kathy Jackson and her failed union faction, and continues to support them at any available opportunity.
Many have questioned Smith’s level of involvement regarding Kathy Jackson given the way he was seen to be organising her interviews and acting more like a PR Manager for her rather than an independent journalist. Many have assumed he is being paid for his loyalty despite the evidence against her.
In fact Smith even went to the extent in a radio interview on 2GB to say that he would stake his entire reputation on Kathy Jackson, words he may one day regret if he doesn’t already.
Where this becomes interesting is that over the last few days there appears to have been a falling out of sorts between Smith and Kernohan.
Firstly, this post went up on Bob Kernohans Facebook page
Interesting that he refers to Michael Smith as his very best friend, and claims to be unaware of the reason why Smith would be “deserting his crusade” regarding union corruption.
I think Mr Kernohan here is being more than a little naïve and that Mr Smith is indeed continuing his crusade, he is just being selective about what corruption he will seek to report on and what corruption he will turn a willing blind eye to.
A comment then appeared on a post on Michael Smiths website from Bob Kernohan regarding Kathy Jacksons involvement in the Peter Mac money scandal which saw her end up with what appears to be a $250K expense account that she has tried to claim is a union slush fund. This claim comes despite evidence from bank statements showing only cash withdrawals and personal spending, any union expenditure is either completely invisible or completely ficticious.
Mr Kernohan’s comment was;
“The Peter Mac money is a scandal in its self, and serious questions must be answered. Regardless of how the elected union officials seem to have seen it as there “god given right” to spend it as they did, it gives rise to some very important questions to be answered by those elected officers of the HSU at the time, and yes mate that includes Kathy Jackson…….. They have no given right under the rules of a registered union to take personal ownership of that money and spend it like it was their own personal money…THEY HAD NO RIGHT AT ALL, so some very serious questions need to be answered. I hope you post this my friend and pursue it like you have done with Gillard/Wilson and co in respect to the AWU scandal. I have kept a copy of this post just in case, for whatever reason it is not posted. I have saved this comment and will share it on FB if you don’t allow it to be published on your blog.”
Bob Kernohan
Smith clearly had no choice but to allow this comment to remain on his website, where I’m sure he hoped nobody would notice it.
It is also clear by Kernohan’s threats of posting it on his Facebook page that he has learnt a thing or two about trust and perhaps censorship recently.
For what it’s worth, despite our obvious and glaring differences I do actually like and respect Michael Smith.
Michael Smith
Whenever I have spoken with Smith he has been open, friendly and genuine, it is fair to say that once you’ve met him he is in fact a hard person not to like.
Given this I would point out to Michael that it is not too late to back away, no matter what you may have said in the past in public there is always reasons to justify a change of heart. It is OK to make a mistake and it can only improve your reputation to come forward and say that your judgement may have been clouded.
Also remember this is the best it is going to get for Jackson and her crew. It is only going to get worse from here on in with cross-examination still to come.
It is also worth pointing out that Jackson’s ally in NSW Katrina Hart has already formed a partnership for the NSW elections with Bob Hull knowing she can’t be seen to be aligned with Jackson.
You may recall that it was Bob Hull’s car that Williamson took off in with the infamous black bag after the police raid on the NSW office. Hull is someone who Jackson and Hart painted as part of the Williamson corruption all throughout the last election campaign.
Should we start referring to this newly merged faction as the Michael Jackson faction?
Michael, with Bob Kernohan going to this extent to tell you something and with Katrina Hart preferring to align herself to someone she referred to as a Michael Williamson crony then align with Kathy maybe the planets are also aligning and someone is trying to tell you something. Just perhaps?
If you are indeed invoicing for your services, then fair enough, job well done and it may now be time to finalise the contract before it’s too late.
To Bob Kernohan I say “Welcome to the fold, it is good to know that you share the same view as most when it comes to Kathy Jacksons integrity and the running of her union.”
To Michael, in closing I would say if you are worried about losing face by backing away from Jackson, I have been referring to a few sayings lately so here’s one that may just ring true for you.
“Short term pain, long-term gain”
Your future is in your hands.
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
Follow @madwixxy
As a former AWU official in the 70’s and 80’s and now a practising lawyer, I have taken more than a passing interest in the Commission proceedings and the commentariat including Smith’s and yours.
In relation to Jackson, I initially thought she was a whistle blower on union corruption. I suspected [only a gut feeling – no evidence] that she might have been involved in corrupt behaviour simply because she had been in control for a reasonably long time and may have picked up bad habits. My suspicions were confirmed as I sat gobsmacked as she gave evidence. Bob Kernohan is in my opinion a fine man of considerable integrity – too good for the AWU to lose. I agree Smith needs to re evaluate his views on Jackson.
Jackson has a case to answer. However, so does Gillard.
For wixxyleaks to white wash Gilard by referring to her press conference where she said she would answer all questions is just too smart by half. The only journos that attended the press conference were invited without sufficient notice to do their research – good trick if you don’t want to answer hard questions.
Gillard was intimately [no its not a go at her then relationship] involved in the establishment of the AWUWRA. She drafted the application, advised on its registration and was aware it was being set up as a “slush fund” and thus illegal pursuant to WA law.
Gillard has a serious case to answer and like Michael Smith in his defence of Jackson, you have a similar job to review your position based on the evidence so far given about Gillard.
Finally, although I never met Bob Kernohan may I say to him I feel a personal gratitude for what he has done and trade unions owe him a great deal for his honesty and integrity. Thanks Bob.
Just Quietly I think Smith and Co will have a lot more to worry about than personal spats,When Ex PM Gillard is cleared of this mud and RW rubbish it will cost most of them quite a bit of money when & if she sues.
I think these fools are asking for it,I know I would have them in the street if it were me,I would show them all the respect they showed her,NONE.
The ones that will be sweet will be the 2GB cronies the lot of em from Jones on down that will be fun
Thanks for your comments John, they are appreciated.
To be honest I really don’t know enough about the AWU matter, only what I have seen and heard on mainstream, and yes that may mean I haven’t got the full story.
I would say the difference between myself and Smith in this regards is that I do not claim to have an intimate knowledge of the goings on of the AWU matter and therefore have not gone into it an any detail, it only comes up in my piece due to context, so I won’t be reviewing my position re the AWU matter as it is not something I wish to delve into at this late stage of the game.
I do claim however to have an intimate knowledge of the HSU matter in the cases against Jackson in particular, but also the cases against Williamson and Thomson which I have obviously followed closely.
Smith on the other hand claims to have an intimate knowledge of both these matters.
I am not white-washing anything regarding Gillard, I don’t know enough about it to even attempt that, I am just relaying what has been reported in the past. However it strikes me as odd that the commission would delete so much of Bruce Wilsons statement that apparently refers to people trying to set Gillard up.
I too originally had the same impression of Jackson at the start of all this and it was only after being handed evidence that I discovered otherwise.
Much of that evidence is public knowledge now and we have certainly seen a complete turnaround in opinion from the vast majority of those in the mainstream, and the sudden muting of some of those from the MSM who used to wave her flag. Even those in the Liberal Party are backing away from her now.
Smith backing away will make no difference in whether people think she is corrupt or not, most have made up their minds on that. But it may just save his reputation…
Mr Overall just one question. Why has it taken so long for you to come out and express these accusations?
He Mr Overall used the same excuse as the Australian in the Gillard press Conference they were not prepared which to me smells as NEWS LTD had Jurnos in the press Gallery and mobile phones texts ect,
If he was so concerned & knows so much go to RC ask to appear and get cross examined,you know one thing though you wont get any hard questions from Commissioner or Council Assisting.
Why isn’t Kate McKlymont all over this. She did a good “job” on Craig Thompson but is strangely quiet on Jackson.
David, Good question. First, I am interested from my perspective as former official. I watched some, certainly not all, of the RC proceedings and have only in the last few days reviewed the relevant RC transcript again. I am not a professional commentator on these things but I have a ton of experience in dealing with people giving evidence. I read Peter’s post today and thought it was worth a reply. Hope that answers your one question brother.
John Overall thanks. Your response now invites further questions. You say…:”For wixxyleaks to white wash Gillard by referring to her press conference where she said she would answer all questions is just too smart by half. The only journos that attended the press conference were invited without sufficient notice to do their research – good trick if you don’t want to answer hard questions.”.
How do you know those details? without sufficient notice to do research? the accusations against Ms Gillard had been in the public domain for months if not years. Smith has been a megaphone. Pyne and J Bishop in HOR constantly attacked her as did Murdoch’s mob. What was new to be asked?
How many Journalists attended her news Conference who were so devoid of sufficient prep time, they couldn’t ask testing questions? Inside knowledge on your part perhaps? I can’t recall there being an uproar from the MSM about lack of time. I’m positive they would have screamed like banshee on heat if there was good cause. Surely they didn’t have to drop everything, race away from their morning coffee, to make the Press Conference? No calls to the editor first?
I also followed the evidence in the RC and nothing I heard proved to me Julia was involved in a conspiracy of lies. The RC ‘selected’ witnesses all provided in most cases vague recollections of who deposited what, how much and when. An amount of $5000 was one definite amount but hardly incriminating.
What puzzles me is these Crown witnesses suddenly appear publicly from the dust of time.So much concern when the Government embarks on a witch hunt.
I have great respect for Julia Gillard, she wasn’t perfect who the hell is? However nothing I have read, seen, heard convinces me you are on to something re her setting up a “slush fund”.
However the ‘supposed evidence’ is now before the Royal Commission, we shall see what we shall eventually see.
John Overall is wrong. Gillard gave themedia three hours notice,which is more than enough time to prepare. And let’s not forget she did two timeless press conferences and no one laid a glove on her. She also spent many hours in parliament inviting questions and once again nothing. Finally she moved an SSO calling on Abbott to lay out the allegations against her and once again nothing. So john don’t peddle this bullshit about there being a case to answer. It’s discredited crap. It is unbecoming that a lawyer should be promoting it.
durutticolumn Thanks, you confirm my suspicions about this attack (innuendo) on Julia Gillard. The not enough time pre news conference, would have been so out of character for the then PM, as I said earlier, the MSM would have played up merry hell about it. They did so countless times previously on matters of absolutely trivial rubbish. Her attire, her walk, her diction..to hell with it.
Enough of Mr Overall, I am not interested in his grubby game.
Gillard is certainly going to answer a few questions now. The problem was the evidence wasn’t discovered until later. The fact is she was sacked by S&G. She either witnessed documents properly or she didn’t which makes guilty of fraud.
The only journos that attended the press conference where probably all lefties anyway .
I don’t know how you can defend gillard after what she and her cronies did too our Country.
durutticolumn & David: Drivel and humbug describes your uninformed responses. Anyone with a basic understanding of criminal procedure and who has taken the time to read the transcript of evidence as it exists so far could not help but conclude that there is a case for Gillard to answer.
So what does that mean? What is a case to answer?
That is legal jargon where a local court magistrate finds there is enough evidence to commit a person for trial in the District Court – AS THE EVIDENCE STANDS SO FAR. This is usually done based solely on the quality of the prosecution evidence. Most defendants do not offer evidence at committal hearings.
It is clear Gillard MIGHT HAVE advised her client to submit a false application to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission and thus may [REPEAT MAY] have engaged in a conspiracy with Wilson to mislead and deceive the WA Corp Affairs Commissioner.
This does not mean she is guilty but it does mean that the DPP may prosecute. It does not mean that they can prove the case against Gillard beyond reasonable doubt. That will be much more difficult than running an inquisition like a Royal Commission. In my opinion at this stage there is enough evidence to prove a case against Wilson beyond reasonable doubt but proof of guilt against Gillard, beyond reasonable doubt, will be a lot more difficult.
And durutticolumn don’t lecture me about what is “unbecoming” for a lawyer. As a practising criminal defence barrister for many years I have always valued my right to express my opinion freely and without favour whether it to be judges, juries or indeed anyone else. That is not “unbecoming”. It will continue. Indeed failure to express an opinion is more “unbecoming”.
I may be right, maybe wrong – time will tell. But attacking the opinion holder does not make the opinion wrong. What is “unbecoming”, [whatever that means] is describing valid opinions based on evidence as “discredited crap” without any attempt to analyse the evidence in the public domain. I don’t know where you observed the evidence to be “discredited crap”but it sure was not in the pages of transcript of the RC.
Actually, I hope I am wrong with my assessment of the evidence against Gillard. But I see fairly damning evidence in the transcript. Anyhow we will see shortly.
But the case against Wilson is overwhelming and he might [REPEAT MIGHT] drag Gillard down with him.
Dear john u pompous ass your love of hearsay innuendo and unproven assertions makes you just part of the chorus screaming about a case to answer when you have established no such thing. That grub they flew in from Malaysia who you all hung your hat on disappeared into a puddle of pee when he admitted he didn’t write his witness statement and didn’t even know what was in it. So far all I have seen is untested hearsay that wouldn’t make it to a real court. The turc is a kangaroo court. Witness statements redacted, witnesses allowed to make allegations and then applications have to be made to cross examine. So it goes. I repeat, Gillard has been questioned extensively and no one has laid a glove on her. But that doesn’t stop people like you making up scenarios to convict her. I repeat; for someone who loves the law you seem to have no interest in the principles of fairness that underpin it.
You wish Mr Overall, you wish, I can smell the hatred of Julia on your breath. I note your diatribe has dragged a couple of Tory trolls out of hiding. No show without Punch.
durrutticolumn, the pompous and ignorant ass appears to be yourself.
Had you done your homework, you would have known the now-infamous Gillard press conference was in fact called by the PM as a joint conference with then Immigration Minster Chris Bowen to answer questions on asylum seekers.
It was mid-conference Gillard suddenly, unexpectedly and previously unannounced dropped the bomb that she would now go to questions on the AWU slush fund affair. Had there been any prior announcements you can bet chief investigative reporters such as Hedley Thomas and Michael Smith would have been on the first plane to Canberra – the last thjng Gillard wanted.
Remember, this was the work of Gillard’s Machiavellian Misinformation-Minister-In-Chief’s (John McTernan) strategy.
Catch ’em unprepared and unaware.
Those at the press conference were the press gallery Gillard cheer squad – supporters, sympathisers and excusers such as Michelle Gratten, Paul Bongiorno and Laurie Oakes and a handful of juniors, none of whom had previously written or specialised in the story.
Not a Thomas or Smith to be seen.
You also seem to have missed the legal opinion of former head of Western Australia’s Anti-Corruption Commission, (criminal barrister) Terry O’Connor QC who stated that Gillard does indeed have a prima facie case to answer, which appears to be in line with criminal barrister John Ocerall on this post. I would take the opinipons of two criminal barrsisters over your foul gutter language abusive tone in your unonvincing, clearly ignorant shrill post above.
For your benefit, criminal barrister Terry O’Connor QC has stated :
Section 170 of the Criminal Code WA provides that “any person who, being required under a written law to give information to another person, knowingly gives information to the other person, that is false in a material particular is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for three years”.
Section 43 of the Associations Incorporations Act also makes it an offence for a person to lodge a document with the commissioner which the person knows is false or misleading in any material respect.
Under either of these provisions Blewitt, as the person who made the application for incorporation, in my view could have been charged with knowingly giving false information to the commissioner as he was aware that the objects set out in the rules were not the real objects of the association and that the certification in the formal application was false.
Section 7(b) of the Criminal Code provides that where an offence has been committed, a person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit an offence, is also guilty of the same offence and is liable to the same punishment as if he or she had committed the offence. A lawyer who advises a client to do something that would constitute an offence would be caught by this provision.
Gillard advised Blewitt on the incorporation of the association and prepared the rules of the association and, following a query from the commissioner, wrote arguing for the incorporation of the association.
There is, in my opinion, a prima facie case that she could have been charged along with Blewitt as she drafted the rules of the association for Blewitt knowing that the rules did not disclose the purpose for which the association was being incorporated.
Finally, durrutticolumn, why is it when facts and opinions are presented, by learned, educated and experienced professionals, those with an ideology to defend seem always to reply with foul emotive abuse, rather than a sensible factual cool-headed reply?
Lefty journos at Parliament house??? I’d like to see that!!!!
wirilda I take it that was a tongue in cheek comment,other wise its only a short drive too see them.
David Linehan, you too haven’t disappointed with your abuse. Is this taught at a Labor bootcamp or is it genetically preconditioned?
Could we stick to the facts, please. That’s what will decide innocence…or guilt.
I have to say Simon your view of abuse clearly differs to mine
David has not been abusive in any way shape or form from what I have seen, although I gather it is part of “Liberal Bootcamp” to try and put words into other peoples mouths.
When you don’t like facts presented from the other side, please don’t label it abuse as it won’t wash on my site.
Peter, yes, agreed. Clearly your view of abuse is different. Abuse of another on a forum or blog can be readily identified by the use of personal attack and foul language, which is what’s clearly used in the above examples. What’s your interpretation?
My view was formed when John Overall offered professional opinion with facts. He was personally attacked in return. Check out the language above. Perhaps you skimmed over it and missed it.
I have gone over it again, and I can’t see any foul language at all Simon, do you have an example that I have somehow missed.
The reason I have to moderate my comments is I often have the most hideous of personal abuse with the most disgraceful of language which is often misogynistic in nature, however I can assure you this has come from right-wingers 99% of the time, but of course I would expect that given my leanings as I’m sure right-wing sites receive similar from some of us “lefties”.
I however would not go so far as to say it is “genetically preconditioned” as it is not only a ridiculous statement that some would find offensive, but is also more than a touch hypocritical given there is more than enough examples of it from those on the right.
At least those of us on the left are willing to accept that there is some guilt of unwarranted abuse from some of those that share our views.
Your issue seems to be that you only view one side as professional.
So you tell me, is Michael Smith acting professionally by ignoring all of the evidence against Kathy Jackson and claiming to be an expert on the HSU matter?
Before you try and handball this back to me I have made no claims on being an expert on the AWU matter and never have.
Peter, sure your posts are balance to the left, but that’s fine when you allow alternative and opposing points. I have an unashamedly balance to the right (surprise). That’s simply because I rely on fact over emotion in forming my views. It’s understandable why you would need to moderate but full credit for publishing my posts unedited (typos and all).
Here are the examples of David’s language which were abusive in nature:
I can smell the hatred of Julia on your breath. I note your diatribe has dragged a couple of Tory trolls out of hiding….
If you don’t find that abusive, then we do indeed differ. But that’s ok. This isn’t Soviet Russia.
In regards to Michael Smith, I’m inclined to agree with you. You make a good case, and I have the utmost respect for Bob Kernohan who is unwavering in his mission to rid unions of corrupt conduct. It’s a shame the union movement rid itself of Kernohan and stacked itself with the sort of people now bringing the movement into disrepute. My sympathies are with the genuine union members who contribute fees in good faith.
Ok, we differ on the abuse issue, however we are in agreement regarding the long suffering union members.
However it is important to remember that the HSU is an isolated instance and does not indicate the union movement as a whole, just as I’m sure you would like to think that the Liberal MP’s being paraded through ICAC currently don’t represent every Liberal MP i the country
Oh, well, I wasn’t going to bring up the AWU, CFMEU (also subject to the investigation by the RC into union corruption).
Peter and Simon, I am not worried by a little bit of rough and tumble name calling or whatever. I have been around a long time and copped [and given out] a lot worse than I got here. Pretty mild actually. Back to the real issue – Not only does Kathy Jackson have a criminal trial on the horizon but I think her former hubby is in the same boat. The union credit card use by both Jacksons is amazing. A close analysis of Mr. Jacksons union credit card reveals possible similar engagements enjoyed by Thompson. I wonder if he is related to Rex.
What he, Simon M on July 25, 2014, said.
I am not a word smith.
I agree with John Overall’s position on this subject and would be interested to know if John’s detractors after reading the RC transcripts have any doubts about Wilson’s activities. If the answer is no, I would suggest that they have not properly read the transcripts. If the answer is yes then questions remain to be answered by Gillard because she was clearly linked with Wilson at the time in the sense that she assisted with the process and even if innocent of any conscious wrong doing she is at the very least an important witness.
Let’s not obsfucate about how long ago this happened or use look over there arguments about the deleted passages in Wilson’s RC statement which some say refer to a conspiracy by their enemies (Jackson uses that word a lot) to bring down Wilson and Gillard. There is nothing stopping Wilson from disclosing the sentiment of those passages by way of a public statement and RC has already read them. It is my recollection that Wilson’s Counsel did not fight too hard to retain the passages. In any event it is the facts that matter. Emotional words like ‘discredited crap’ and ‘you hate Gillard, I can smell it on your breath’ mean little.