Aussie PM dumped by own party

[Magda Hassan]

Craig Thomson under the rain

Posted by admin in Crime, Investigations, Politics on 22 May, 2012 9:51 pm / 15 comments

retweet210

Share
After Craig Thomson's speech to Parliament, many in the media and Opposition side of politics have gone back to their roles as judge, jury and executioner. Peter Wicks looks at some of the discrepancies in the stories of his accusers.
[Read the other stories by Peter Wicks on IA about the Craig Thomson affair: Part 1, Part 2 andPart 3.]

Craig Thomson (not Thompson) and his chief accuser, Kathy Jackson.

ON MONDAY, 21st May 2012, the Thomson Circus finally rolled into Canberra.
Twas the day the Honourable Member For Dobell, Craig Thomson, made his long awaited speech before the parliament and a packed press gallery. His aim? To prove the word "Honourable" in his title is justified.
I'm not going to try and convince you it was one of the greatest speeches ever in our parliament; nor am I going to try and convince you that it was a poor effort. You are all able to make up your own minds. Every journalist, commentator, shock jock, blogger and media hack along with pretty much anyone with a Twitter account has a view on Craig's performance. And of course, all of them are right apparently. I don't want to talk about that.
What I want to talk about is the fallout from Craig Thomson's speech. Whether his credibility is enhanced or diminished as a result of his speech and about those, apart from Craig, upon whom the spotlight will fall when some tough questions are finally asked of them as must surely happen.
Firstly, regarding Craig Thomson's claim of a set-up about which in Parliament today Coalition attack dog Christopher Pyne dismissed as totally lacking any credibility.
This appears to be a strange statement, as there appear to be a few fairly obvious discrepancies in the evidence against Craig Thomson, which can be easily identified from the public record.
Firstly, let's talk about Craig Thompson; that's right, Thompson with a "p".
On the credit card imprints reportedly offered as evidence in December 2010 by Fairfax Media in their defence of Thomson's defamation proceedings (which were eventually settled out of court) it was a person named "Thompson" (not Thomson, as Craig Thomson spells his name) who had received the notorious escort services.
According to Fairfax reporter Geesche Jacobsen, in a story published on 10 December 2010 (emphasis mine):

The court was hearing legal argument in a defamation case brought by Mr Thomson, the Labor member for Dobell, against Fairfax Media, publisher of the Herald. The paper last year published allegations concerning the use of a credit card issued by Mr Thomson's then employer, the Health Services Union.
Fairfax's barrister, Sandy Dawson, told the court credit card statements for $2475 and $385 in Mr Thomson's name showed two entries in the name of Keywed Pty Ltd Restaurant in Surry Hills, on April 9, 2005 and August 16, 2007. That company name was linked to the escort agency Sydney Outcalls, he said, and it was not unusual for adult services to make the entry on financial records "look like a culinary experience rather than a more sensual one".
The credit card vouchers for the transactions were issued in Mr Thomson's name, were signed and noted a driver's licence number. According to subpoenaed RTA records, a licence with that number was issued to Mr Craig Robert Thomson of Bateau Bay. NSW drivers' photo licences can be used to verify a person's identification.'

Evidence reportedly tendered by Fairfax in defamation proceedings brought against them by Craig Thomson.

As you can see by the image above, the surname on the credit card imprint purportedly made by Craig Thomson clearly says "Thompson".
It is also a manual credit card imprint from one of those old fashioned credit card machines, which results in a receipt showing a carbon copy of the face of the credit card. In other words, the credit card alleged to have been used by Craig Thomson had his name spelt wrong.
Now, last time I opened a bank account they were pretty fussy about ID. They are quite careful to make sure your name is right for rather obvious reasons. Identity theft is, after all, a pretty big issue these days.
I would assume this to be even more important with a credit account given it's the banks money you are spending.
This evidence was introduced by Fairfax as "forensic evidence" of Craig Thomson's use of prostitutes with a HSU credit card. Are they truly saying that Craig Thomson was using an official HSU credit card that was not even issued in his own name?
Has anyone questioned whether the credit card used for the imprint was actually such a poor forgery it didn't even get the name of the target precisely correct? Bear in mind that the card was swiped manually, not through an EFT console, so any forgery would only need to duplicate the face of the card and not the magnetic strip.
Perhaps Fairfax's investigative crime journalist Kate McClymont, who wrote 12 stories about Craig Thomson without interviewing him once, as he noted in his speech, can explain this apparent discrepancy? We look forward to this obvious question being answered.
On the face of that, Craig Thomson's arguments about identity theft appear to gain weight.


Secondly, Thomson stated in his speech that he had a water-tight alibi for three of the occasions he was alleged to have used a brothel.
Craig Thomson said:

"Of the seven occasions that are set out, three of them could not be me. There are alibis: on two occasions my being with other people, and on one occasion being in Perth and not being in Sydney for the month around the alleged incident."

Craig Thomson did not have an immediate alibi for the other four occasions, he said, which the usual talking heads in the media world and the Opposition seem to be inferring proves guilt. But, wait a minute… if he had an alibi for three of the occasions, doesn't that actually actually show that his identityhad been stolen for at least three of the incidents. There is no other way to look at this if Thomson truly can prove his whereabouts for those three incidents, then his argument about identity theft is proven. If this is the case, then the rest of the incidents must be called into question. Or, put another way, if Thomson's identity was stolen on three occasions, then there obviously is a conspiracy against him which throws the entire matter into doubt.
We would urge Thomson to come forward and show evidence to categorically prove his whereabouts for any of the incidents. If he cannot do this, his story loses credibility; but if he can, his assertions gain weight.
Without a thorough analysis of the source and circumstantial evidence, it is impossible to adjudicate on Thomson's guilt or otherwise. But in any case, as we have shown, Thomson's alleged use of prostitutes is not as clear-cut as it has been portrayed in the media, or by the Opposition, and should be left for the proper authorities to consider with all the appropriate facts at their disposal not through a media/political Kangaroo Court as is currently, depressingly, occurring.
Next is the allegation that Thomson misused Union funds for his election campaign. Indeed, HSU Acting President Chris Brown alleged, after Thomson's speech, that the money taken by Thomson for election campaigns had not been approved by the Union. After all, said Brown, as he was on the committee, he would have had to approve the expenditure. That leads me to a couple of queries.
Firstly, why has the Union not asked for the funds to be returned?
More importantly, if Chris was in charge of the Union's funds, why did he not notice these funds go missing without sign-off? We are talking about a substantial sum of money here. Was he asleep at the wheel, bad at his job, just plain dumb, or maybe even complicit? These are reasonable questions that do not seem to have been asked by anyone.



Craig Thomson's address to Federal Parliament made mention of the behaviour of the press in particular Channel Seven. Thomson broke down when he spoke about them lurking outside the bathroom window as his pregnant wife showered.
This is not the first time this Network has been attacked for going the extra mile in its portrayal of the news.
Who could possibly forget Tony Abbott criticising Channel Seven for their job on the infamous "shit happens" story last year.
Before that, in NSW, we had the legendary David Campbell incident. MP David Campbell was filmed leaving a gay club one night, with the flimsy public interest purpose offered by Seven being an allegation that he had driven a Government car to the premises.
Nevertheless, Channel 7 denies Thomson's allegations of hovering outside bathroom windows and, it seems, the majority of us accept it.
Some of you may have seen Kathy Jackson being interviewed on 7.30 by Chris Uhlmann, or heard her having a chat with Chris Smith on 2GB last week; if not, I have included links to the full interviews.
Chris Smith knows a little about workplace relations, having had some interesting experiences himself. Smith, prior to introducing Jackson, gives a summary of events that was, at best, a gross exaggeration and, at worst, a total fabrication.
But, rather than focus on that, I wanted to go over Jackson's responses to Chris Uhlmann who was a more objective interviewer than Smith. The following is taken from the transcript of the programme, to which I have added my comments underneath.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Did you witness a confrontation where a union official Marco Bolano said he would ruin Craig Thomson by setting him up with prostitutes?
KATHY JACKSON: I have never witnessed such a confrontation or meeting or clash or whatever you want to call it. That has never occurred.

Marco Bolano recalls things differently; he did recall the meeting, though he denies any mention of prostitutes. He said the meeting was with a "half brother" of Thomson's and that it was, indeed, a heated exchange.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Are you aware of any union officials before Mr Thomson being accused of consorting with prostitutes?
KATHY JACKSON: No.

For somebody who constantly refers to Thomson as "delusional", this is an interesting answer. (In fact, Jackson calling Thomson delusional is itself an interesting statement, given Kathy Jackson herself reportedly suffered a mental breakdown and was committed to psychiatric care in a Melbourne Hospital just last year.) But her disavowal here of any knowledge of any other officials being accused of visiting prostitutes is very interesting, when we consider the following link to a story in The Weekend Australian, which describes exactly the same kind of allegations being made against her very own ex-husband, Jeff Jackson, in 2009 and which mentions her throughout as someone intimately involved in the whole affair.
Brad Norington writes (11/4/2009):

The allegations against Jackson, a senior figure in the ALP's Victorian Right faction, have only come to light because of leaks after a nasty power struggle within the HSU's No. 1 division. No one emerges as a cleanskin in this battle: certainly not Jackson's main opponent, the HSU branch's president Pauline Fegan. But the sloppy and sometimes sordid details of union spending at the HSU have emerged in the same week that one of its former officials, federal Labor MP Craig Thomson, has been forced to fend off allegations that he, too, used his union credit card on prostitutes before entering parliament at the 2008 federal election.'

Are we to believe that Kathy Jackson has an incredibly short memory span? Or is perhaps delusional herself? It would seem difficult to forget ABC Lateline filming you and your ex-husband only 3 years ago, as Norington writes in the same piece at the same time as providing some tantalising clues about Jackson's possible motivations:

The position of Kathy Jackson in the HSU's accounting mess is particularly crucial, because she was the whistleblower who alerted her union's executive to the need to review credit card expenditure by her union predecessor Craig Thomson.
She is also central to the puzzle as Jeff Jackson's feisty former wife and the head of a Victorian HSU branch in her own right (known as HSU No. 3). During an interview with ABC TV's Lateline program on Thursday evening, Jackson could be seen telling her intruding former husband, "Thanks Jeff, shut the door."
While the pair are estranged personally, they are believed to be on the same side politically. So Kathy Jackson's method in seeking mass resignations and fresh election could be a tactical move, based on the belief that her ex-husband has enough support within the union to win back his position at the expense of Fegan.

Now, back to the ABC 7.30 interview between Uhlmann and Jackson:

CHRIS UHLMANN: Well Mr Thomson's made many accusations about you as you have of him. He points out that you drive a union paid for Volvo, that your child care and gym fees are paid for, you have taken numerous overseas trips at the expense of the union and that you're salary doubled in the weeks after he left at $270,000.
KATHY JACKSON: I reject all those claims. What I do say about the salary I'm quite interested in, what did he say …

She rejects all those claims? Jackson does, in fact, drive a union paid for for Volvo SUV.

KATHY JACKSON: [Discussing her $270,000 salary.] At mediation last week in the courts, as part of that mediation process, I put my hand up and said that I should get at least $100,000 salary cut, and that was rejected.

Wait up. Last week? Well, that's timely. Her pay was, according to her in the same interview, massively increased to $270,000 in May last year why did she accept such an increase if she thought it was exorbitant? And Jackson brought this up at a "mediation"? Now, unless the issue is within the terms of that particular mediation, it will be thrown out automatically as irrelevant to the proceedings. This seems to me to be a pre-planned tokenistic gesture….

CHRIS UHLMANN: Is there a conflict of interest here because your partner Michael Lawler is the vice President of Fair Work Australia?
KATHY JACKSON: No, not at all and I reject that claim totally. And Craig Thomson's allegations are totally wicked against him. Michael Lawler is the Vice-President of Fair Work Australia, formerly the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Michael Lawler has suddenly gone on what FWA are calling "Long Leave". This happened last Friday in such a hurry that even his PA was unaware of it when I spoke to her. The question must be asked: why has Lawler suddenly vacated the scene without his partner if there are no suggestions of a conflict of interest?

CHRIS UHLMANN: Has Michael Lawler ever been involved with you in any of the strategy meetings with the HSU about any of the actions that you have got going?
KATHY JACKSON: Well, obviously, as my partner I talk to Michael about what I'm doing and as my partner I talk to him about not just HSU issues but other issues as well.

Now, this shows the colossal conflict of interest. The police operation set up to investigate the HSU, Strikeforce Carnarvon was set up after Michael Lawler made the original police complaints about union corruption. The prospect of the Vice President of an investigative body being the partner of, and discussing the case with, his partner, who is head of the body under investigation, is an atrocious look for any investigation. Indeed, there are excellent grounds for this situation to be investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It is somewhat akin to Ivan Milat going out to dinner and spending the night with the judge at his trial.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Does Michael Lawler have connections with the Liberal Party as Craig Thomson suggests?
KATHY JACKSON: Not that I know of.

Should that perhaps be "No Specific Knowledge", the Coalition's current standard get-out clause, used ad infinitum by Pyne, Brough and Abbott over claims they assisted James Ashby in his case against Independent MP Peter Slipper?

CHRIS UHLMANN: You mentioned the HR Nicholls society, who is paying your legal bills?
KATHY JACKSON: I'm paying my legal bills. Um … I've got a $40,000 debt already. That the union won't pay for. And Brett Shields for Reid Zafp are doing all the work pro-bono and so is Stewart Ward.

With Chris Smith on 2GB, Jackson stated "no-one is paying those fees" and that "all are doing it pro-bono" so, where did the $40,000 debt figure come from?

CHRIS UHLMANN: Are you still using Harmers workplace lawyers?
KATHY JACKSON: Yes I am.
CHRIS UHLMANN: And are they doing that work pro-bono?
KATHY JACKSON: Yes they are.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Are you aware that it's the same law firm that's representing James Ashby the man who has accused the Speaker of sexual harassment.
KATHY JACKSON: I am now.

Given the media attention, it would seem to be beyond belief that Jackson would not have been aware of this fact by last night. In any case, she did not look in the slightest bit shocked or surprised at this revelation in the interview.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And why do you think Harmers workplace lawyers is representing you pro-bono?
KATHY JACKSON: I think they are representing me pro-bono because they believe in my case. I'm not making this up. The allegations that I have taken to the police are serious and genuine. I have not made these allegations to set Craig Thomson up or anybody up.

How nice of them. If legal firms operated in that manner, they would only charge a fraction of their clients as I'm sure they believe in many, if not most, of their cases. By Jackson's logic, if Harmer's charge a client for their services, they must think they are guilty, or not believe in their case a ridiculous proposition and one that shows a lack of transparency by Jackson.
In my view, for the reasons described and others Kathy Jackson did not seem to me to be at all a convincing witness, especially given her statement contained significant unexplained discrepancies with the public record. Her response on 7.30, in all, would appear to lend added credibility to Craig Thomson's claims. Of especial note is that Jackson did not deny that Michael Lawler was involved in strategy meetings with the HSU.
Of course, all this may be entirely coincidental and the Jackson-Lawler-Liberal connection may be entirely innocent. Thomson may, indeed, be guilty. However, he deserves the presumption of innocence especially given the waters are so murky.
In any case, the debate about Craig Thomson's guilt or innocence will rage on for a while yet, since the Independent MPs Andrew Wilkie and Tony Windsor say they will not support any motion to suspend him from Parliament.
If there is a positive outcome from yesterday's speech, it is that it was good to see and hear another side to the story starting to come out at long, long, last.
We can't know who is guilty of who is pure at this stage. At this stage, only one thing is really for sure and that is that the accusations will keep raining down thick and fast.
It will be interesting to see who is best covered and who remains dry after the downpour…
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012...-the-rain/

[Magda Hassan]

Thomson and Jackson 5: Sticky fingers

Posted by admin in Crime, Investigations, Politics on 25 May, 2012 5:30 pm / 10 comments

retweet1,041

Share
She spoke out not to get Craig Thomson MP, [B]she said, but to clean up the HSU. But, in a stunning IA exclusive, Peter Wicks uncovers compelling documentary evidence to suggest HSU "whistleblower" Kathy Jackson may have herself misappropriated Union funds.
[/B]

HSU national secretary Kathy Jackson (image courtesy ABC).

It has been almost a week now since Australians sat mesmerised as they watched Craig Thomson tell his side of the HSU saga in an address to Federal Parliament, where he still sits although now as an Independent member.
And it has been almost 2 weeks since Independent Australia first broke the story of the tangled web behind the scenes of the Fair Work Australia Investigation. A web made up of a Liberal Party aligned think tank; the Liberal Party's favourite lawyers; a factional battle; a Union "whistleblower"; this whistleblower's partner; the whistleblower's partner's mate, the Opposition leader; and the whistleblowers partner's organisation where the partner is 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] in charge doing a five year investigation and finally issuing a report full of findings most of which were dismissed by the Australian Electoral Commission within just a few days.
If you have not read our previous articles, it is worth reading them here for background into this investigation.
[Read the previous stories in this series: Part One, Part Two, Part Three and Part Four.]
The original article Independent Australia published was highly controversial. It highlighted a web of connections that have raised questions about the credibility and good faith of the union whistleblower, Kathy Jackson, and exposed the massive conflicts of interest of Fair Work Australia's Vice President, Michael Lawler.
These issues have placed a huge question mark over the entire Fair Work Australia investigation and its findings most of which have been disproved by the AEC anyway, as we said before.
It is worth remembering that there have been seven that's right, seven prior investigations that have each concluded that Craig Thomson had no case to answer. This FWA investigation, however, has been the first investigation to be conducted by the body for which Craig's accuser, Kathy Jackson's partner, holds the position of Vice President. With this in mind, the results should come as no real surprise.
The FWA investigation was set up to investigate financial irregularities within the Health Services Union. Most of the findings, however, centred around Craig Thomson. Kathy Jackson, in contrast, comes up smelling like roses in her partner's organisation's investigation what a shock that was.

The FWA investigation lasted five long years longer than World War One; longer than many people spent in high school; longer, even, than every Australian Big Brother series to date combined.
In the process of their investigation, FWA had access to the HSU files, records, offices, computers, staff, and even organized a police raid. Over five years, they had all the time, resources and personnel for a completely thorough and meticulous investigation of every aspect of the HSU.
However, in just over five days, with none of the other resources FWA had access to, we have uncovered new evidence that FWA Kathy Jackson's partner's team conveniently missed.
It is fair to say that the allegations against Craig Thomson are based primarily on information provided by Jackson. The evidence, which Thomson disputes and the other seven investigations dismissed, was presented by Fair Work Australia the organisation where Michael Lawler, Jackson's partner, is Vice President.
Paramount to the Opposition bringing Craig Thomson down, is maintaining the integrity of Kathy Jackson, Michael Lawler, and the Fair Work Australia investigation. That combined with a sickening display of personal attacks from the Coalition that have highlighted the inner ugliness of some of the Liberal front bench. And after all the muck-racking and personal attacks from the Coalition frontbench, Tony Abbott today had the audacity to suggest that Craig Thomson resign from Parliament apparently for his own good. This whole Craig Thomson affair has a nauseating stench to it and very little of it seems to be coming from the man so much under attack.
Especially given I have in my possession many documents that have come from within the HSU that go towards the integrity of Craig's accusers. These include copies of transactions, copies of cheque butts, original cheque requisitions, and remittances with signatures all show details of transactions would appear to be extremely irregular.
For legal reasons, we cannot show most of these documents, however there are a few we will share with you here. Both myself and Independent Australia would like to make clear that all of the original documents that are in my possession will be made available for any investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption or any Police investigation. I am also happy to provide copies for any kind of parliamentary enquiry. Some of these documents raise important questions that I will put out there now.



Firstly, as some of you may remember, during an interview on ABC's 7.30 programme on Monday, Kathy Jackson answered "I reject all those claims" when asked whether the Union paid for specific things such as her gym, car, and also child care.
Here is the relevant exchange:

CHRIS UHLMANN: Well Mr Thomson's made many accusations about you as you have of him. He points out that you drive a union paid for Volvo, that your child care and gym fees are paid for, you have taken numerous overseas trips at the expense of the union and that you're salary doubled in the weeks after he left at $270,000.
KATHY JACKSON: I reject all those claims….

This link, however, shows records of payments from the Health Services Union to Minifie Park Child Care Association. Some transactions are identified as "Staff Benefits", and one as "Staff Uniforms". Some of the electronic transaction records even show Kathy Jackson's child's name as a reference.

The Minifie Park Child Care Centre is, quite literally, just around the corner from Kathy Jackson's residence, where she allegedly spends most nights with Fair Work Australia's Vice President Michael Lawler. When I contacted the child care centre, I was told that they do not have uniforms. However, when I asked what staff benefits there are being paid for with HSU member's funds, I was told by their Director, Julie Oliver, quite abruptly, to contact their solicitor, whose details I was not given.
These transactions seem to suggest that not only was Jackson concealing the truth during her interview on 7.30, but also that she may have been using Union funds to pay her substantial child care costs and was allegedly hiding the transactions in different accounts as general HSU expenses.
Secondly, I also have original cheque requisitions and remittances in my possession that bear the approval signature of a Kathy Jackson. These documents detail payments, and have matching cheque numbers for payments, made to a company called Neranto No 10 mostly for consultancy services. There are a rather large number of these payments, so I thought it best to have a look at Neranto No 10.
A company search shows that Neranto No 10 was from 1994, until it was deregistered on 16 November 2008, owned and directed by Jeffrey Peter Jackson and Katherine Koukouvaos. Koukouvaos is Kathy Jackson's maiden name and Jeffrey Jackson is her former husband.

There are also documents that give a detailed breakdown of the hours of consultancy work being invoiced, and also details of travel expenses. These hours are totalled up and invoiced. It is important to remember that at the time these hours were being invoiced from her company, Neranto No 10, Jackson was also being paid a wage by the HSU.
There are several companies registered in Victoria that bear the name Neranto, they go all the way to No 15. It would be interesting to know how many of these are owned by Jackson, and which organisation is their biggest client.
The HSU No 3 Branch of which Kathy Jackson was General Secretary before the branch merged into HSU East, declared expenditure of $276,028 for consultancy fees between 2004 and 2008, that is over a quarter of a million dollars. I believe it warrants investigation in order to determine just how much of that expenditure ended up being paid to a company owned by Kathy Jackson the person, it would appear, who approved the cheque requisitions.
Of course, there may be a perfectly innocent explanation for all this…
In the meantime, I believe what the union members would like to see is some transparency from Jackson. By this, I mean opening up the financial records of these companies so that it can be determined to what extent the membership were invoiced for the companies "consultancy services".
I do have to ask though, if these seemingly irregular transactions could be found so quickly by me, then shouldn't one question the why Fair Work Australia did not uncover them. With glaring irregularities such as this missed, and Craig Thomson bearing the brunt of the allegations, I have to question why.
Given that these irregularities involve Jackson, the partner of Fair Work Australia's Vice President, Michael Lawler, only heightens my curiosity.
Also given that Craig Thomson's expulsion from parliament would likely cause the Labor Government to collapse, thus elevating Tony Abbott the man who appointed Lawler to his position to Prime Minister makes the investigation seem even more questionable.



It is my belief that the financial irregularities within the HSU that involve Kathy Jackson warrant further investigation. I am not saying that she is guilty, as I believe guilt should be determined by a court, not by me, or the Leader Of Opposition Business. I would also like to see someone ensure that any funds that may have been taken fraudulently from members are returned as soon as possible if such a thing is proven to have occurred.
Given these findings, and given the relationship between Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler, whom Kathy acknowledged discussing HSU matters with on the ABC's 7.30 this week, I have major questions as to the integrity of the Fair Work Australia investigation. Particularly when one considers that as she was discussing these matters with her partner he was Vice President of the organisation investigating the Union where she was Secretary.
In addition to this, you may remember, from one of our previous articles, that Jackson appeared to have access to a Fair Work Australia computer which she appears to have saved documents from. Imagine an organised crime figure being allowed access to the investigation files on his crime syndicate while an investigation is in place
Adding to my doubts on the investigations integrity, is the decision for both the head investigator of Fair Work Australia, and Michael Lawler to suddenly go on "Long Leave" last Friday. This was the working day before Craig Thomson's speech, and also not long after Independent Australia raised questions regarding Lawler's involvement and conflicts of interest.



It is fortunate for Jackson that she is receiving free legal services from both James Ashby's lawyer, and also Stuart Wood in Melbourne. You may remember Wood is from HR Nicholls, a Liberal Party aligned Think Tank dedicated to destroying trade unionism, with former Coalition frontbencher Peter Reith as a board member and contributors such as Andrew Bolt, Eric Abetz, Peter Costello, Michael Kroger, and of course Tony Abbott. Kathy Jackson is, against the wishes of the HSU, soon to speak at a HR Nicholls function strange behaviour for a trade unionist. (You can see who attends and speaks at these functions by watching the video above.)
As I said before, we are happy to provide all the documents we are in possession of for any official investigation into this matter we have them in a safe place. Again, we are not stating that anybody is guilty or innocent of any crime, only putting a case forward for further investigation into the Union and maybe even Fair Work Australia itself.
Suddenly, Craig Thomson's so called "conspiracy theories" are beginning to look more and more believable as details and documents, such as the ones shown here, emerge.
Tony Abbott has called Kathy Jackson "credible" and "heroic" and this is something he may come to regret. Call it a hunch, but I think Jackson's free legal services from one of the Liberal Party's nearest and dearest may come in quite handy.
But, then again, that's just a hunch.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012...y-fingers/

[Magda Hassan]

Thomson 6: Kathy Jackson and the HSU $½ million

Posted by admin in Crime, Investigations, Politics on 29 May, 2012 11:00 pm / 13 comments

retweet470

Share
Another ground-breaking investigative report from Peter Wicks shows evidence of huge unexplained payments being made to HSU "whistleblower" Kathy Jackson as Craig Thomson's so-called "conspiracy theories" begin to look more and more believable.


THE NEWS has finally broken in the mainstream media.
At the Senate Estimates Committee hearing yesterday, the recently appointed Fair Work Australia President, Justice Iain Ross, scotched any suggestions his colleague and 2IC, Michael Lawler, had in any way interfered in the Fair Work Australia investigation into the Health Services Union where Lawler's partner, Kathy Jackson, is the national secretary.
Mr Lawler had assured him this had not happened, Ross averred, and no-one had provided him, personally, with any evidence anything untoward had occurred and, in any case, he didn't even have thepowers to investigate a lofty senior "member" of the judiciary which is what Lawler is, apparently. So, that's that.
You can read more about Justice Iain Ross' comments, who also appeared on ABC 7.30 last night, byclicking here.
Michael Lawler was, of course, unavailable to answer questions at the hearing yesterday, as he had been away on "long leave" whatever that means. Clearly, his recreation was more important than appearing in front of the Senate.
Also unavailable to answer questions from the Senate was the single FWA investigator, Terry Nassios, who prepared a report so damning of Craig Thomson, now an MP, that it may have the power to bring down the Federal Government.
[Download Terry Nassios' report into the HSU in PDF.]
Now, there is no reason to suggest, apart from Thomson's allegations of bias, that Terry Nassios is anything other than the career public servant doing his job "without fear or favour" as he said he described himself to Craig Thomson when Thomson first raised the issue of Michael Lawler and Kathy Jackson with him. And, like Ross suggested, there may not be any immediate evidence of Lawler interfering in the investigation indeed, Nassios claims, in his report, never to have spoken to Lawler and there is no particular reason to doubt him.



However, as we have written about over the past fortnight, with the evidence of Michael Lawler's massive conflicts of interest, which also includes his active involvement in HSU politics on behalf of Kathy Jackson (as has now finally been reported by the ABC in the last 24 hours), Lawler's seniority within the FWA does lead many, including us, to have deep misgivings about the even-handedness and veracity of the FWA investigation. This is magnified when we consider that it appears as if Kathy Jackson has had access to FWA computers, and used them to send HSU material, as we've previously reported.
[If you have not read our previous articles, it is worth reading them here for background into this investigation: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four & Part Five.]
These reservations are multiplied again, when one considers that when Nassios asked the HSU to provide all the financial and management records for the time period that Craig Thomson was working for the HSU it was Kathy Jackson who personally delivered the 4 boxes of records, containing just 12 folders.
That's right, Craig Thomson's main accuser was the one who checked out all the records and then personally delivered them to the FWA.
Once Nassios checked through the records, he found that many documents he had expected to find, like the minutes of all HSU national office board meetings, were not included in those 12 folders.
Nassios says he rang the HSU but was unable to talk to Kathy Jackson as she had left the country, so he asked other staff there if there were any records that had failed to be delivered to him. The staff assured him that he had been given the records but couldn't confirm that this was, in fact, the case. All they could say definitively was that Kathy Jackson had checked out all the records none of them were present when she delivered the documents.
Strangely, Nassios concludes in the report that since the documents like the minutes of the board meetings had fone missing and since the staff of the HSU say all of the documents were sent to him, then that this must mean that Craig Thomson didn't make these records. This is despite Thomson asserting repeatedly that all the records and minutes were there when he left the HSU.

From Terry Nassios' investigation into HSU, p.36

The first question that should be asked is why a senior union official, who was being paid over a quarter of a million dollars per annum, plus benefits, was doing such a mundane job as being a courier?
Secondly, what proof is there that she actually delivered all the records?
Thirdly, why did Nassios not question the fact that Jackson had just had unrestricted access to the records immediately before they came into his possession?
It seems that one of the reasons the FWA report took so long to complete was that Nassios was, right up until the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] half of last year, still trying to get the missing board minutes from the FWA. If Craig Thomson is actually telling the truth about trying to implement proper procedures, controls and standards of accounting at the HSU while being actively resisted by Kathy Jackson then those minutes going missing would indeed be most advantageous to Jackson, as they would be the exact records that could prove this one way or the other.
It is an unusual element of the Nassios report that is damning of Craig Thomson and Michael Williamson, yet mentions few other parties. About Kathy Jackson, was just minor one adverse finding, as opposed to the scores listed against the other two, who were both Jackson's factional enemies.
From our investigations, however, it is abundantly clear that the rot in the HSU was far more extensive than just one or two corrupt individuals. And the more I look into it, the more information I uncover, and the more documents that find their way into my hands the more I understand why HSU members are so livid. The following video is instructive as to the extent of the factional in-fighting and allegations of corruption by multiple officials at the HSU:



There are those who have pointed out to me that, according to the Murdoch press, Craig Thomson has over $500,000 worth of union money to explain. Many of these people point out that the approximately $26,000 of questionable Union funds that we have exposed which Craig's accuser Kathy Jackson needs to explain is small-fry in comparison.
Contrary to those assertions, the Australian Electoral Commission has cleared has, in fact, cleared most of the accusations about Craig's electoral funding, which apparently made up the bulk of the $500,000. This in turn has brought the amount of unexplained funding down to about $17,000. It must also be remembered, these funds were used for union advertising, as part of the anti-WorkChoices campaign not going straight to Thomson's bank account. There are no allegations I can find that suggest any payments had been made directly to Craig Thomson.
Craig's main accuser, the so called "union whistle blower" Kathy Jackson, would like us all to believe that she had the union members best interests at heart that she merely wanted to clean up the HSU.
On the ABC's 7.30, she told Chris Uhlmann that she thought she was overpaid, and had tried to have her salary reduced by $100,000:

CHRIS UHLMANN: Doesn't that seem a little excessive… [discussing Kathy Jackson's pay rise to $270,000]
KATHY JACKSON: Yes, it does.
CHRIS UHLMANN: … for someone who represents some of the poorest workers in Australia?
KATHY JACKSON: I agree with you but let's look at the history of this. As I said previously this was rammed through the council, by Michael Williamson and his people. We objected to it. The Victorians ran a case against it to the council, it was in camera.
I wasn't at the meeting. We were asked to leave. The New South Wales councillors rammed this proposal through.
At mediation last week in the courts, as part of that mediation, process, I put my hand up and said that I should get at least $100,000 salary cut, and that was rejected.

<em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: none; outline: 0px; ">

It appears, judging by this statement, that Jackson does not like to see unnecessary expenditure and, indeed, is willing to make personal sacrifices for the good of the members. It is commendable, yet rather odd, that after receiving this salary for years, she had only chosen to address her excessive pay now still, better late than never, I guess.
While Kathy Jackson's statement on 7.30 may seem honourable to some including Tony Abbott, whocalled her a hero documents that have come into my possession paint a rather different picture.
[NOTE: All documents, by the way, will be turned over to any police or official investigation upon request. We want to make clear that we have no and never at any time had any intention of retaining possession of these documents and will make all reasonable efforts, once our investigations are complete, to return all items to their rightful and lawful owners.]

From the HSU Vic No. 3 Branch minutes: Kathy Jackson's "honorarium"

According to these documents, Kathy Jackson claimed, and was paid, $63,000 on 30 June 2010. The payment was called an "honorarium" and was, according to the HSU Victorian Branch No. 3 minutes, simply performing her duties as the Branch Secretary and were in addition to her $270,000 annual salary. If somebody really wanted to reduce their wage by $100,000 then, to me, it would seem logical not to claim an extra $63,000 when it was not necessary she do so.
Even more seriously, the 2010 Auditors by Agostinelli and Perlen, Chartered Accountants, into the HSU Vic No. 3 Branch has a payment that stands out alarmingly, to say the very least.
On page 18 of that report, it shows an amount described as "Key Management Personnel Compensation". The only recipient listed is Katherine Jackson and it is for $522,570. That's over half a million dollars taken from some of the nation's lowest paid workers.
Now, it doesn't take Albert Einstein to understand that this is a lot of money for a union official to receive in a single payment. Also, bear in mind that this is also in addition to Jackson's $270,000 salary as well as all of the "consultancy fees" her companies have charged the union which have totalled $36,867.46 for Neranto No 10, and $4,860.72 for K Koukouvaos Consulting, where as an ABN does not appear on the invoice, I understand this makes them direct payments. (Given no ABN appeared, it would also be useful to know whether all the appropriate taxation has been paid on these fees.)

From 2010 audior's report: Key Management Personnel Compensation for Kathy Jackson

One of the other worrying things in the auditor's report is on page 19. Considering the over a half million dollar payment detailed on the page before, it is a timely reminder that Kathy Jackson was, until very recently, also a trustee of H.E.S.T. Australia the Industry Super Fund for the health industry.
Independent Australia and I have both have received numerous anonymous tips to look into the HESTA fund and its trustee's. Unfortunately, we have not had the time to thoroughly do so. It is, however, interesting to note that on 15 August 2007, there is a payment for Accommodation and Travel to Kathy Jackson marked HESTA' for $13,100. That's some travel expense.
Indeed, in just two weeks, we have found payments to Kathy Jackson, and to her children's Child Care Centre, totalling $659,063.18. Bear in mind that Kathy Jackson is not an investment banker, she is a union official representing low-paid healthy service workers.
Below is a breakdown:

• $4,860.72 K. Koukavaos Consulting
  

• $36,867.46 Neranto No. 10, for consultancy services
  

• $13,100 Katherine Jackson direct, for Accommodation and travel HESTA
  

• $12,500 Katherine Jackson direct, for postage and shipping. Apparently lots of shipping…
  

• $63,000 Katherine Jackson direct, for an Honorarium payment
  

• $6,165 Minifie Park Child Care Association, apparent staff benefits and uniforms
  

• $522,570 Katherine Jackson direct Key Management Personnel Compensation
  

Documentation of these payments may be accessed on our site via the links mentioned above.
Of course, there may be reasonable explanations for all these payments.

In happier days: (from left) Kathy Jackson; Christa Thomson (Craig's former wife); former HSU official and now Victorian Labor MP Kaye Darveniza; and an unknown person.

It is worth noting that all of these payments were discovered with extremely limited access and in only 2 weeks; one can only imagine what a forensic accountancy team would find with full access over a month.
We have had mountains of documentation to wade through, and there is much more to come in this saga. I have been lucky enough to have my wife Felicity going through documentation and helping to proofread my posts, as well as IA managing editor David Donovan who assisted in the investigation and putting together the final versions of the stories. I would also like to thank the vast numbers of people who have sent messages of support, and particularly to all the HSU members who have offered information and assistance. These good people just want their union back from those who have hijacked it.
It is starting to appear as there could be a large number of people who were using HSU funds like personal bank accounts. It may be that of the many involved, all they needed was a fall guy; and who better than someone who was, perhaps, trying to clean up the Union Craig Thomson.
Of course, this is speculation and again, I must stress, we are not claiming that Craig is innocent; what we are saying, though, is that he should be considered such until proven guilty by a lawful and properly constituted court as should Kathy Jackson.
In the thousands of messages we have received, there was just one that expressed concern for Jackson's partner, Michael Lawler, Vice President of Fair Work Australia. Lawler has, as we've reported, been on "Long Leave" suddenly the working day before Thomson's address to parliament and has been keeping a low profile since.
We have some good news for that person, and anyone else with concerns for Lawler. According to several eye-witness reports we have received, he was spotted last week looking dapper and as fresh as a daisy in a café, having a cuppa with his partner Kathy Jackson, along with the manager of Opposition Business Christopher Pyne.
The same Christopher Pyne who had a late night drinking session James Ashby.
Hmmm…

Kathy Jackson and Victorian Labor MP Martin Pakula.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012...-fall-guy/

[Magda Hassan]

Some uncovering of the Peter Slipper scam.

The Peter Slipper illusion

Posted by admin in Politics on 6 May, 2012 12:01 am / 6 comments

retweet3

Share

With LNP powerbrokers Mal Brough and Christopher Pyne now [B]having been revealed to have met James Ashby at least six times in the immediate lead-up to his civil and criminal claims against Speaker Peter Slipper, Ian Harris asks if the whole affair is just an illusion.[/B]
James Ashby and Peter Slipper

I have been pondering the current state of politics in Australia.
I am a keen reader and recently came across a quote from Galileo:

"Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regard to matters requiring thought : the less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgment upon anything new."

It also neatly aligned with my recent re-discovery of the notion of illusion in our lives.
You might recall that George Bush and John Howard went to war in Iraq because they had evidence' that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction' at his disposal. This proved not to be the case.
Financial collapses are often born out of illusion. The figures show one thing but, when you get in behind and understand the reality, another scenario is revealed.
Magicians are working with illusion all the time. They cut people in half and put them back together again. They pull a rabbit from a hat. A coin from behind their ear. Illusion was Harry Houdini's bread and butter.
And politicians work with illusion too!
Many people see the current situation with the Speaker as being a failure of Gillard's judgement in trying to retain some semblance of advantage in a hung parliament.
Others see it as the result of a successful campaign by an Opposition leader who sees it as his divine right to become Prime Minister.
But it is possible that there is a deeper more complex agenda playing out behind these obvious facades which fill our newspapers, TV's, radios and web-pages.



Let me speculate for a moment.
Let's say that you were a purveyor of oil. You have wells, refineries and service stations all over the world. Your turnover might well exceed that of many sovereign nations.
A small nation then passes legislation to introduce their populace to the benefits of clean energy'. They want to wean them off fossil fuels and provide them with potentially cheaper sources of energy. The Sun is one such source. Muon-catalysed fusion is another. Not to mention geothermal. And waves in the ocean.
Your revenues would, in the long term, be decimated. In the short term, they would also take a hit because you are going to have to spend huge amounts on research and development to stay competitive. You will also have to spend huge amounts on public relations to ridicule the need to move to a clean energy future'.
The value of your shares will most likely fall as you face these pressures. The wealth of your shareholders will decline considerably.
Now, let's say your shares were tightly held by only a few families. And let's say that the banks who funded you were also fairly tightly owned by only a few families.
Would you expect that these families would move to protect their positions?



Absolutely!
Where would they start?
Well, with the country who has passed the legislation.
That's because a clean energy future' might catch on. You would have to stop it before it gets on a roll. Other countries might come to see the benefits to their populace of cheaper energy and emulate the initiative.
So what you might do is to start to undermine the parliament of the country that has passed the legislation.
After all, this is not rocket science. This country has managed to get this legislation through a hung parliament. Just imagine how more swiftly it would've occurred had they had a substantial majority. Other nations have such majorities.
So, you devise a cunning plan.
You have the Opposition leader in place. He's a good one because he is a conservative and a Catholic to boot with a strong relationship to a Catholic archbishop!



(Remember that it was the Catholic Church who managed to delay the populace understanding the remarkable discovery that the planets revolved around the sun rather than the other way round. So why would they not move to support their interests given their real estate holdings and their revenues.)
You have some strategic alliances in place too! This government has also had the audacity to suggest that the people of this particular nation should be entitled to a greater share of the non-renewable mineral wealth under its soils. Wealthy miners are lining up to support you.
You could organise something similar to the Charge of the Light Brigade.
But you are more subtle than that!
You start with the institution of government. A simple undermining strategy!
You manage to exploit a situation where a beleaguered female Prime Minister sees an opportunity to get an advantage to pursue her social agenda.
You put in place a debonair, disenchanted Liberal with a slightly exaggerated sense of his role to play and you set him up beautifully.
Firstly, with some simple Cabcharge dockets. And then you raise doubt in the populace's mind as to whether this disenchanted Liberal might be gay. He is the moderator of behaviour in the parliament and he can't possibly do that if he is gay! In the UK maybe but not here where real men are bronzed and muscled.
There are other tricks that you have up your sleeve to scratch this government out of existence too. They are even more subtle!

And in due course, this government is wiped out at the next polls and your Opposition leader becomes PM and repeals the legislation with his huge majority.
The populace of this country are saved from a clean energy future and they have the pleasure of remaining dependent on fossil fuels for the rest of their days.
Your wealth is retained.
All you have to do is to keep on funding the research that says reliance on fossil fuels is not causing our planet to heat up to the extent that it will become uninhabitable. This is a minor impost to your profits. That's because many of your allies are scientists who are funded by the public purse, via universities and government grants.
Boy, these illusions are fun!

On the slippery slope with Slippery Pete

Posted by admin in Politics on 8 May, 2012 2:00 am / no comments

retweet32

Share

James Ashby's allegations against Peter Slipper appeared to be the golden goose for the Coalition, but it has turned around to bite them, says Dr Benjamin Thomas Jones.

The three amigos: Mal Brough, James Ashby and Christopher Pyne each met numerous times in the lead-up to Ashby allegations.

When news broke that the Independent Speaker, Peter Slipper, was being investigated by the Australian Federal Police for travel fraud and was facing an allegation of sexual harassment, it appeared to be yet another scandal for Julia Gillard's shaky minority government. In the Machiavellian world of politics, things are rarely as they seem. Independent Australia was the first to suggest something was amiss in the curious case of the speaker and the staffer. Now, in the words of Lewis Carroll, the case has becomecuriouser and curiouser!
It is little wonder that Joe Hockey came out yesterday pleading for an end to "all of this speculation" about Slipper. Problems first arose for the coalition last week when Chris Pyne claimed he could not remember meeting with James Ashby. It has since been revealed that Ashby a former Liberal party member and Slipper staffer, who now claims the former Speaker sexually harassed him not only met with the senior Coalition figure Christopher Pyne in the immediate lead up to Ashby's lawsuit for a two hour late night drinking session, but less than 20 minutes after that rendezvous, Pyne sent an email and text message seeking Ashby's details. Pyne has accepted the evidence, but maintains he doesn't remember asking for the contact details…
It is understandable that Pyne now wants to forget the whole affair like Hockey. Even more damaging for the Coalition is the revelation that former Howard Government minister Mal Brough who is planning to challenge for Mr Slipper's seat of Fisher met with Ashby on numerous occasions and urged him to take action against the Speaker, even meeting Ashby with a lawyer on at least one occasion. It was revealed yesterday that Ashby had contacted deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop's office and that opposition whip Warren Entsch had tried to ring Mr Abbott the night before Mr Ashby's allegations were published. Pyne and Brough's stories seem to change daily.



Opposition MPs, including Abbott, are now using the precise term "no specific knowledge" when asked what they knew beforehand about Ashby's claims implying, in the minds of many, that they certainly knew something. Indeed, Tony Abbott, normally the first man seen in a flouro vest and hardhat for a photo stop, has not been sighted in several days, after abruptly walking out of a press conference after journalists began pestering him about the links between Pyne, Brough and Ashby and what he knew.
More curious still.
It can hardly be disputed that the Opposition was feigning surprise when the story first broke. It is clear that several senior figures were well aware of the impending story and it is difficult to believe Ashby has not been coached by the Liberal Party to gain maximum impact. New foreign minister, Bob Carr, drew afiery response from Hockey for commenting:

This Ashby seems more rehearsed than a Kabuki actor'.

With the numbers in the House of Representatives so precarious, the Opposition had a lot to gain from Slipper's removal which forced Labor to provide another speaker and lose a crucial vote. The man with the most to gain is Brough, who is trying to remove Slipper from a seat he has held for all but three years since 1984. Alarmingly, the press at large has been reluctant to join the dots in the Slipper case. Annabel Crabb, who has returned to Fairfax, even wrote an article mocking supposed conspiracy theorists. She concedes that it is intensely convenient' but ridicules the idea of a sophisticated plot for the Liberal Party'.
It may well be asked, how sophisticated does the plot need to be? When Slipper left the Liberals and took the Speaker's chair, he cost the Coalition one vote and gave Labor one courtesy of Harry Jenkins returning to Labor's backbench. It is natural enough that the Coalition would welcome any tarnishing of Slipper's name, but the accusations made by Ashby are hopelessly unconvincing. Even Coalition senator Barnaby Joyce has dismissed the sexual harassment claim noting that Ashby was "not a boy in his teens but a man in his 30s". The allegations made to the police were made public and they simply raise more questions than they answer. The Coalition is clearly not interested in protecting a vulnerable staffer, but are focussed solely on attacking a vulnerable government.



Should the claims against Slipper prove to be false, the whole slippery affair may come back to bite the Coalition. If this happens, it will be history repeating itself in very short cycles. Just three years ago, Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader desperately tried to bring down Kevin Rudd's government with theUtegate scandal. With the allegations proving false and a key email having been forged, the Liberals were left with egg on their faces. They had tried to exploit Godwin Grech, a passionate supporter of the Liberal party, to bring down the Government but when your main weapon is so openly partisan, suspicions will inevitably be aroused. Ashby is also known to have made two videos for yet another Liberal pre-selection candidate vying for Slipper's seat along with Brough while he still worked in Slipper's office. Ashby, like Grech, is a current or recent Liberal Party member and is known to have ties to senior Liberal figures. He is also a man with a criminal past and, in Joyce's words, "he seems only slightly less dodgy than Slipper". And there are other, even more unsavoury, allegations surrounding him.
The Opposition have never really recovered from their landslide 2007 defeat. They have been highly effective at criticising the Government, but have failed to construct and sell effective alternative policies. The situation has become even more acute following the hung parliament of 2010. Abbott, like Turnbull before him, is banking on a great scandal to bring down the Government. He is desperately hoping he will not have to wait until the next election and that a vote of no confidence, an Independent crossing the floor, a legal allegation, or an unexpected by-election, will gift him the prime ministership. As with Grech, it is doubtful the Ashby claims will topple the government.
In Australia to promote his new movie, The Dictator, comedian Sacha Baron Cohen demanded to know where Slippery Pete was, so he could add him to the staff of his fictional ministry. It was an appropriate jibe, as the whole affair, frankly, is a joke. The Government, in all likelihood, will survive a full term and it is up to Abbott to prepare strong alternative policies with full costings. For the immediate future at least, it would pay for the Coalition to focus less on stunts and ambitious young staffers, and more on the weighty task of forming the next government. If not, Abbott could well pay the same price as Turnbull for trying to take the easy ride to high office.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012...pery-pete/

[Magda Hassan]

Gillard Govt coup: timelines & cables reveal why Assange has to be removed'.

POSTED BY ANONYMOUS â‹… JULY 11, 2012 â‹… LEAVE A COMMENT
FILED UNDER ASSANGE, AUSTRALIA, GILLARD

Crucial to the US war against Wikileaks is the support of a compliant Australian Government. The United States Government decided that Julia Gillard was the right person to lead Australia (at least in terms of their interests) and so, like a game of chess, pieces had to be moved into place.The following timeline is adapted from the Jararparilla website (see link at end of this posting) and includes additional links via Darker Net searches to cables and other files that show a synergy between moves by the US to outlaw Wikileaks and political manoeuvres in Canberra.So, no wonder Julia Gillard and her ministers are not providing assistance to Assange in his fight against onward extradition to the USA. It is a political not a legal decision and has nothing to do with ignorance of the facts surrounding the case, or apathy, but because the very survival of the Gillard Government depends on Assange's removal from circulation (if not worse) and the destruction of Wikileaks.Timeline of events surrounding Gillard coup24 November 2007 Rudd wins election after a campaign in which he called climate change "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time". He promptly signs the Kyoto Protocol, leaving the USA isolated. Australia withdraws remaining "combat troops" from Iraq.29 November 2007 Rudd directly chooses his frontbench, breaking with more than a century of Labor tradition whereby the frontbench was elected by the Labor caucus, with the leader then given the right to allocate portfolios.13 June 2008 US Canberrra Embassy cable titled "Deputy PM Julia Gillard Star In Rudd Government" notes: "At this point, Gillard would have to be considered the front-runner to succeed Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister, which would make her Australia's first female Prime Minister. Several contacts caution, however, that Rudd is ambivalent about Gillard, who is not from Labor's Right Wing like he is, and he will avoid creating a potential rival. By the time Labor is thinking beyond Rudd, Gillard may well face more serious competition…. Many key ALP insiders have told pol offs that Gillard, who joined the ALP as a member of the Victorian branch's Socialist Left faction, is at heart a pragmatist. New South Wales Right powerbroker Mark Arbib (protect) described her as one of the most pragmatic politicians in the ALP. Michael Cooney (protect), from the ALP Right and a former senior adviser to ALP leaders Mark Latham and Kim Beazley, said she has been very impressive as a minister: knowledgeable on the issues, listens to advice from subordinates and civil servants and is not afraid to delegate responsibility. When we reminded Paul Howes (protect), head of the right-wing Australian Workers Union, that ALP Qof the right-wing Australian Workers Union, that ALP politicians from the Left, no matter how capable, do not become party leader, he said immediately: "but she votes with the Right." … Although long appearing ambivalent about the Australia-US Alliance, Gillard's actions since she became the Labor Party number two indicate an understanding of its importance… Although warm and engaging in her dealings with American diplomats, it's unclear whether this change in attitude reflects a mellowing of her views or an understanding of what she needs to do to become leader of the ALP. It is likely a combination of the two. Labor Party officials have told us that one lesson Gillard took from the 2004 elections was that Australians will not elect a PM who is perceived to be anti-American."10 November 2008 Rudd votes against Israel on two UN resolutions, ending Howard government's unswerving alignment with the United States.11 Feb 2009 US Canberrra Embassy cable notes: "Rudd, who likes to centralize decision-making in any event, undoubtedly believes that with his intellect, his six years as a diplomat in the 1980s and his five years as shadow foreign minister, he has the background and the ability to direct Australia's foreign policy. His performance so far, however, demonstrates that he does not have the staff or the experience to do the job properly… In October, Rudd's self-serving and inaccurate leaking of details of a phone call between President Bush and him cast further doubt on his foreign policy judgment… In January, after the press published a story that the U.S. had asked Australia to accept some Guantanamo detainees, the Government responded to the story by issuing a statement publicly acknowledging our confidential request and stating that they were not likely to accept the detainees."4 May 2009 Rudd delays implementing an emissions trading scheme until 2011, defers Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation until 2013.June 10 2009 US Canberra Embassy cable titled "Gillard: on Track To Become Australia's Next Prime Minister" notes: "Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard who visits Washington later this month has positioned herself as the heir apparent to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as ALP leader… Gillard, a product of the ALP Left in the state of Victoria, has shifted towards the political center since Rudd became ALP leader and is now a strong supporter of the Australia-US Alliance and Israel. Although she is still seen as a leftist by key right-wing union powerbrokers, that is not likely to stop her from succeeding Rudd as the next leader of the ALP… Gillard recognizes that to become Prime Minister, she must move to the Center, and show her support for the Alliance with the United States… Don Farrell, the right-wing union powerbroker from South Australia told us Gillard is "campaigning for the leadership" and at this point is the front-runner to succeed Rudd, conceding that the Right did not yet have an alternative. Agriculture Minister Tony Burke, one of the early NSW Right backers of the Rudd-Gillard team, confided that Gillard is the clear front runner to succeed Rudd and in the end, the ALP caucus will follow the opinion polls if she is the one the public wants… At present, the question of a successor to Rudd is probably two elections away. Several Rudd confidantes have told us that Rudd appreciates Gillard and sees her as a possible PM, but that he wants to avoid anointing her to head off a possible leadership challenge when his poll numbers inevitably sag. The PM's brother Greg told us in April that Rudd wants to ensure that there are viable alternatives to Gillard within the Labor Party to forestall a challenge. Mark Arbib once told us a similar story, though he stressed that Rudd appreciates Gillard's strengths. However, another Rudd advisor told us that while the PM respects Gillard, his reluctance to share power will eventually lead to a falling out, while Gillard will not want to acquiesce in creating potential rivals. In the meantime, Gillard has proven her value to the Prime Minister and we expect her to remain the most important member of the Rudd Government, after the Prime Minister himself."July 2009 Wikileaks releases report of serious nuclear accident at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility (related to later Stuxnet virus).July 20 2009 US Canberra Embassy cable titled "Mark Arbib: Clout-wielding Ascending Leader" notes: Arbib is a close adviser to Rudd and is his key conduit to the ALP factions… We have found that Arbib is an astute observer and able conversant in the nuts and bolts of U.S. politics. He understands the importance of supporting a vibrant relationship with the U.S. while not being too deferential. We have found him personable, confident and articulate. A strong supporter of the alliance, he has met with us repeatedly throughout his political rise."4 August 2009 US Canberra Embassy cable on ALP Forum: "Rudd, to the bewilderment of many observers, remains highly popular with voters across the political spectrum. This is the bedrock of Rudd's unchallenged authority over the party."October 2009 WikiLeaks publishes Joint Services Protocol 440, a British document advising security services on how to avoid documents being leaked.Dec 23 2009 US Canberra Embassy cable discusses Rudd's reshuffled cabinet: "Foreign Minister Smith stepped out of Rudd's shadow and the resignation of Joel Fitzgibbon as Defense Minister proved to be a blessing for the government. Support for the U.S. Alliance, and the mission in Afghanistan, remained strong…. Labor Right factional powerbroker Mark Arbib close to the Prime Minister was rewarded with a ministry despite his inexperience… [Gillard] remains Rudd's clear heir apparent. Colleagues continue to be in awe of her mastery of detail and confident performances…Rudd has unprecedented power for a Labor leader; one MP told us he had never seen a Labor Caucus as subservient to its leader, noting Rudd's control over promotions. Another told us she was surprised at marginal seat holders' acquiescence on the ETS. However, powerbrokers confide the factions will assert themselves when Rudd's popularity wanes."18 February 2010 WikiLeaks publishes REYKJAVIK13 cable, dated 13 January 2010. This is the first published Cablegate file.April 2010 Polling shows Rudd government was highly popular until this month.April 2010 WikiLeaks publishes Collateral Murder video.May 2010 Bradley Manning is arrested after online chats with Adrian Lamo. US State Dept goes into damage control over release of cables. Australian Mining industry launches media "ad war" against Rudd's Minerals Resource Rent Tax.10 June 2010 (approx) Australia's US ambassador and former Labor leader Kim Beazley meets US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to provide a briefing on the coming leadership change.23 June 2010 Gillard announces leadership bid for next day.24 June 2010 Rudd steps down, becoming the only Australian Prime Minister to be removed from office by his own party during his first term.October 2010 WikiLeaks release Iraq War Logs. See also here.December 2010 Fairfax journalist Phillip Dorling publishes WikiLeaks cables (quoted above) showing Australian ALP politicians were in regular contact with the US Embassy.To see the original of the above timeline with an introduction but minus links and cables, click here.
To see the Wikileaks Australian files', via the Sydney Morning Herald website.

http://darkernet.wordpress.com/2012/07/1...#more-4107

[Magda Hassan]

It's because he couldn't be controlled by the US that really pissed them off. He actually though he could run the show.

WHEN Kevin Rudd was prime minister, the accepted wisdom was that under his leadership Australia lost its way. Julia Gillard responded by rolling Rudd from the nation's top job. But with the leaking of secret US diplomatic cables leaving Rudd's foreign-policy credentials in tatters - showing Washington held serious doubts over his judgment from early in his time as PM - Gillard has a new question to confront: is Rudd the right person to spearhead Australia's engagement with the world?
''Kevin Rudd is doing a fantastic job as Foreign Minister,'' Gillard was quick to state yesterday when asked about his suitability for the job.
''Kevin Rudd is a man who throughout his adult life has devoted himself to expertise in foreign policy. He's bringing that expertise to bear for the Australian nation and doing an absolutely first-class job.''

Kevin Rudd Photo: Glenn Hunt

So far, the cables that have been released have not shown Rudd to be engaged in any wrongdoing. They are predominantly character assessments and political analysis. Rudd is one among many leaders around the world finding out what the Americans truly think of him.
Advertisement
But courtesy of WikiLeaks, Rudd has even more baggage to cart around the world on his diplomatic sojourns: an American view that he takes a ''haphazard, overly secretive'' approach to making decisions, for example, or the public disclosure that Rudd has a penchant to privately describe China's leadership as ''paranoid''.
Fair or not, Rudd is presented as a man with a forked tongue. ''People who are looking to have frank dealings with Australia's Foreign Minister will be put on their guard by these revelations,'' says Andrew Shearer, a former diplomat and foreign policy adviser to John Howard.
As more cables come to light, questions about Rudd's performance will continue, adding to the already heavy burden of his job - not only when dealing with foreign leaders, but also with officials of his own department. The cables from the US embassy in Canberra reveal the depth of frustration Australian diplomats felt during Rudd's time as prime minister. Morale within the foreign service had ''plummeted, according to our contacts inside as well as outside the department'', then US ambassador Robert McCallum wrote to Washington in 2008.
A year later, the situation was worse. ''Prime Minister Reigns Over Foreign Affairs'' was the title of a secret cable marked for American eyes only. ''Rudd is a centraliser by nature who will only grudgingly share the decision-making on foreign policy,'' wrote Dan Clune, acting ambassador at the time.
Clune wrote that while the foreign service suffered a series of savage cuts to its budget, foreign policymaking was centralised in the prime ministers' office.
''Rudd has appropriated control of foreign-policy formulation and decision-making, leaving his foreign minister to perform mundane, ceremonial duties and relegating the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to a backwater,'' Clune continued.
Particularly galling to Stephen Smith - Australia's foreign minister during Rudd's time in The Lodge - was the prime minister's habit of going directly to key ambassadors for advice rather than his cabinet colleague. But, according to the cable, Smith had accepted being out of the loop as ''inevitable''.
''Rudd,'' the secret US assessment continued, ''undoubtedly believes that with his intellect, his six years as a diplomat in the 1980s and his five years as shadow foreign minister, he has the background and the ability to direct Australia's foreign policy. His performance so far, however, demonstrates that he does not have the staff or the experience to do the job properly.''
Even Labor powerbrokers were frustrated. Mark Arbib, one of Rudd's number-crunchers when he rose to the leadership, told the Americans that ''Rudd's staff would like to get their boss to spend less time on foreign policy and delegate more, but that they recognise that this is a hopeless task''.
Now, having marginalised DFAT and been criticised for it by the Americans, Rudd is back on his old stomping ground with a reputation for an abrasive style and chaotic work practices. He is also seen as a person who nurses a grudge. As prime minister he vetoed the appointment of former university colleague Hugh Borrowman and then senior official in the Prime Minister's Department, who had been proposed as ambassador to Germany. Borrowman and Rudd had clashed over Rudd's decision-making style.
Andrew Shearer, now with the Lowy Institute, believes the evidence from the cables - of senior foreign affairs officers complaining to the US about Rudd's foreign policy attitudes while prime minister - is bound to complicate his relationship with departmental staff.
''I suspect we've only touched the surface. I think there will be a lot of very nervous people all around Canberra desperately trying to remember what they might have said to American diplomats and crossing their fingers it wasn't recorded or attributed directly to them,'' he says.
Before the WikiLeaks cables surfaced, Foreign Minister Rudd was already driving the department hard. This was welcomed by some insiders, who held the view that as Rudd was no longer prime minister, foreign affairs was now back where it belonged - with the diplomatic service.
Gillard had declared international affairs was not her ''passion'' and appeared content to let Rudd take the running.
Rudd himself made an effort to be personable, walking the floors of the department's headquarters and introducing himself. Department secretary Dennis Richardson, a highly regarded, no-nonsense operator, kept a restraining hand on Rudd's impulsiveness.
But within the department there are plenty of grumbles, too - that Rudd is demanding instant briefings of subjects that then seem to have little follow-up; that his travel schedule is relentless and lacking strategic purpose; that the infamous temper tantrums during his time as prime minster are being felt anew.
During the recent visit of Hillary Clinton, for example, Rudd insisted he be included in the ABC television broadcast with the US Secretary of State and was annoyed at being left out.
Yesterday Gillard skirted the question of whether she would give an assurance that none of the Australian diplomats named in the cables as having criticised the Rudd government would suffer any repercussions.
''I'm not commenting on the contents of cables,'' she said. ''We select our diplomats on the basis of competence and their ability to represent Australia and I've got every confidence in the diplomats we've selected.''
This has become the government's stock line in response to the cables - to offer no comment, then try to put the best gloss on the content. Rudd took the same approach yesterday when asked repeatedly if he was abrasive, impulsive and a control freak.
''I mean, are we waiting for a diplomatic cable which says Kevin Rudd is a, you know, witty, charming, relaxed, down-home sort of guy who is constantly cracking jokes and does everything we want him to do? Well, of course not.''
Rudd might claim the criticism in the cables is ''water off a duck's back'', as he did yesterday. But as Shearer sees the problem, Australia's most important ally has decided the country's Foreign Minister is not terribly good at managing foreign policy.
''That's not really sustainable. It makes it all the more damning that senior professionals in the field judge him as they do,'' Shearer says.
Nor does Rudd's old political sparring partner, Alexander Downer, buy into the government spin. ''Of course it's not water off a duck's back,'' Downer told ABC radio yesterday. ''Anybody would say that, but of course that's not true. This is excruciating for him.''
Meanwhile, Rudd is off abroad again, travelling to Indonesia, the Middle East and South America. The note-takers in his meetings will doubtless be especially wary their scribblings don't wind up in the newspapers. But it is easy to imagine that the WikiLeaks cables will be at the forefront of their minds.
''Every foreign minister and every head of government in the world is dealing with this stuff at the moment,'' Rudd admitted yesterday. ''And it's just one of those things that happens; you just deal with it and you move on and you get on with the business. The big challenges of international relations remain.''
Biggest among them is China. Australia had already been through an awkward patch in its China relationship. The WikiLeaks cable confirms Rudd saw Australia's military expansion as a direct response to China, ''if everything goes wrong''. In the cables, Rudd also described China's leaders as ''sub-rational and deeply emotional''.
''It's very hard to see how he could have any prospect in the future of being a credible person in charge of Australia's engagement with China,'' says Paul Barratt, a former Defence Department secretary.
Barratt says Rudd will fare better with the US despite the former American ambassador's response to Rudd's leaking the details of his phone conversation with then president George Bush.
''He showed exceptionally poor judgment in trying to aggrandise himself at the expense of Australia's most important relationship,'' McCallum wrote.
Fixing international ties is one thing. Rudd must also convince his boss, Julia Gillard, that he can be effective as Australia's envoy to the world.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-man-f...z2PyBeVKgK

[David Guyatt]

It's because he couldn't be controlled by the US that really pissed them off. He actually though he could run the show.

That's exactly what it sounds like, doesn't it. It also sounds like Oz's Foreign Affairs Department is an adjunct of the US State Department.

[Magda Hassan]

It's because he couldn't be controlled by the US that really pissed them off. He actually though he could run the show.

That's exactly what it sounds like, doesn't it. It also sounds like Oz's Foreign Affairs Department is an adjunct of the US State Department.

It absolutely is. Not a move is made with out their permission.

[Magda Hassan]

An interesting evening. Rudd is back as PM and the person who was holding the knife in his back last time chose to put the knife in the back of the PM he replaced Rudd with.

[Anthony Thorne]

The photo revealing Shorten's grim expression just prior to entering the room to vote was one for the ages. As journo Tim Lester (from my home State of Tassie) noted yesterday, Shorten hates Rudd, Rudd despises Shorten, and for Shorten to re-empower the man who would happily drop him off a cliff into a grey ocean would be a large bottle of bitter pills to swallow.