Will Craig Thomson finally give us some relief?
- Thread starter dutchie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- craig thomson
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Which is the real Julia - the Thomson Julia ir the Santoro Julia?
The boomerang mud the PM hurled at Santoro has come back to slap her in the face
Julia Gillard with Peter Fitzsimons and Mike Carlton on 2UE, March 14, 2007
HOST: But you are slinging some mud yourself at the moment. Senator Santoro and his $6000 share profit; he says he had forgotten about the share deal. When he discovered it, he did the right thing, gave the $6000 profit to charity: fine, all done. Why should you go after him on that? He has fessed up; he has done the decent thing.
Gillard: We have got just a very simple case here. The prime minister has got this thing called the ministerial code of conduct. Well, if he is going to have it, he has to enforce it and Senator Santoro didn't abide by it . . .
Host: The prime minister is saying, look, let's be common sense about this. It didn't affect any government decision, no one lost any money by it, the senator fessed up as soon as he found out what he had done and cleared the loot. Aren't you being too hard?
Gillard: Shouldn't he amend his code of conduct to say it doesn't matter if you don't disclose as long as, once it is in the newspaper, then you start fixing it up.
Host: So should he sack Senator Santoro?
Gillard: Look, that is a matter for John Howard . . . but I think Australians will be getting a wry smile at the irony that . . . this senator doesn't look like he is going to pay a price at all.
Sunday, Nine, March 18, 2007:
LAURIE Oakes: Well, Santo Santoro we've heard resigned on Friday. . . Do you think this is helping the Labor Party, the ragged look that the government now has?
Gillard: I certainly think it's hurting the government. Voters are looking at the government, and I think they are increasingly concluding it's stale, it is old, it's tired, its best days are behind it, and there's a raggedness and loss of control, and that squarely lies at the feet of the prime minister. He's the bloke who is supposed to be in charge.
Oakes: Is there any merit in the idea of some sort of independent authority administering the ministerial code of conduct rather than leaving it to the prime minister?
Gillard: I'm open to ideas, Laurie, but I think the question is only being raised because the prime minister has lost control. If we had a prime minister who was there day after day, strictly enforcing the ministerial code of conduct, brooking no breaches, dealing with it toughly, dealing with it competently, dealing with it quickly, then I don't think anybody would be speculating about the need for an independent body . . .
Oakes: Does Senator Santoro's resignation from the ministry end that matter?
Gillard: It doesn't end the matter in the sense I think Senator Santoro still has some explaining to do. . . .
Oakes: The issue of mud-slinging is something that you've taken a lead in over the last week, attacking the government over it. But both sides do that don't they?
Gillard: I think the Howard government invented a new political commodity, Laurie. It's called boomerang mud; it's the kind of mud you chuck and that it whirls around and just comes back and hits you in the face.
AM March 21, 2007:
SANTO Santoro: I stand here tonight with a heavy heart to address an institution that I hold most dear. My omissions, which are the products purely of poor attention to compliance, have let down the government, my party, and the reputation of the Senate. Consequently, Mr deputy president, I wish to unreservedly apologise to the Senate. I hope my colleagues here will come to recognise this episode as a tragic blemish on an otherwise careful and committed parliamentary career, during which I have held both the parliaments in which I have served, and the public interest which they represent, in the highest esteem.
Kirk: Describing his resignation as "so difficult" and "so necessary", Santo Santoro says he never had a conflict of interest, never acted dishonestly or with deceit. . . . Labor pushed the secret share saga hard. . . deputy opposition leader Julia Gillard . . . insists it's not the end of the matter.
Gillard: The buck does stop with the prime minister, he hasn't taken sufficient steps to enforce his ministerial code, and there appear to be further questions to be answered.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-her-in-the-face/story-fn72xczz-1226368671885
The boomerang mud the PM hurled at Santoro has come back to slap her in the face
Julia Gillard with Peter Fitzsimons and Mike Carlton on 2UE, March 14, 2007
HOST: But you are slinging some mud yourself at the moment. Senator Santoro and his $6000 share profit; he says he had forgotten about the share deal. When he discovered it, he did the right thing, gave the $6000 profit to charity: fine, all done. Why should you go after him on that? He has fessed up; he has done the decent thing.
Gillard: We have got just a very simple case here. The prime minister has got this thing called the ministerial code of conduct. Well, if he is going to have it, he has to enforce it and Senator Santoro didn't abide by it . . .
Host: The prime minister is saying, look, let's be common sense about this. It didn't affect any government decision, no one lost any money by it, the senator fessed up as soon as he found out what he had done and cleared the loot. Aren't you being too hard?
Gillard: Shouldn't he amend his code of conduct to say it doesn't matter if you don't disclose as long as, once it is in the newspaper, then you start fixing it up.
Host: So should he sack Senator Santoro?
Gillard: Look, that is a matter for John Howard . . . but I think Australians will be getting a wry smile at the irony that . . . this senator doesn't look like he is going to pay a price at all.
Sunday, Nine, March 18, 2007:
LAURIE Oakes: Well, Santo Santoro we've heard resigned on Friday. . . Do you think this is helping the Labor Party, the ragged look that the government now has?
Gillard: I certainly think it's hurting the government. Voters are looking at the government, and I think they are increasingly concluding it's stale, it is old, it's tired, its best days are behind it, and there's a raggedness and loss of control, and that squarely lies at the feet of the prime minister. He's the bloke who is supposed to be in charge.
Oakes: Is there any merit in the idea of some sort of independent authority administering the ministerial code of conduct rather than leaving it to the prime minister?
Gillard: I'm open to ideas, Laurie, but I think the question is only being raised because the prime minister has lost control. If we had a prime minister who was there day after day, strictly enforcing the ministerial code of conduct, brooking no breaches, dealing with it toughly, dealing with it competently, dealing with it quickly, then I don't think anybody would be speculating about the need for an independent body . . .
Oakes: Does Senator Santoro's resignation from the ministry end that matter?
Gillard: It doesn't end the matter in the sense I think Senator Santoro still has some explaining to do. . . .
Oakes: The issue of mud-slinging is something that you've taken a lead in over the last week, attacking the government over it. But both sides do that don't they?
Gillard: I think the Howard government invented a new political commodity, Laurie. It's called boomerang mud; it's the kind of mud you chuck and that it whirls around and just comes back and hits you in the face.
AM March 21, 2007:
SANTO Santoro: I stand here tonight with a heavy heart to address an institution that I hold most dear. My omissions, which are the products purely of poor attention to compliance, have let down the government, my party, and the reputation of the Senate. Consequently, Mr deputy president, I wish to unreservedly apologise to the Senate. I hope my colleagues here will come to recognise this episode as a tragic blemish on an otherwise careful and committed parliamentary career, during which I have held both the parliaments in which I have served, and the public interest which they represent, in the highest esteem.
Kirk: Describing his resignation as "so difficult" and "so necessary", Santo Santoro says he never had a conflict of interest, never acted dishonestly or with deceit. . . . Labor pushed the secret share saga hard. . . deputy opposition leader Julia Gillard . . . insists it's not the end of the matter.
Gillard: The buck does stop with the prime minister, he hasn't taken sufficient steps to enforce his ministerial code, and there appear to be further questions to be answered.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-her-in-the-face/story-fn72xczz-1226368671885
The Senate Priviligeges Committee today revealed Thompson has misled parliament last Monday.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-of-interference/story-fndsip4d-1226369207604
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-of-interference/story-fndsip4d-1226369207604
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Noco, the article is only available to subscribers, except for the first couple of lines which just seem to contain a denial by Mr Lawler that he had any influence.
Did the rest of the article say anything of greater significance? Can you perhaps copy and paste?
Did the rest of the article say anything of greater significance? Can you perhaps copy and paste?
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
The article doesn't say that. There was no comment from the PC.
He may have meant the Senate Estimates Committee.
Officials of the FWA said they were not aware of any evidence that Kathy Jackson's partner (the Deputy Head of FWA) had interfered in the FWA investigation of Thomsom.
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Thanks, Calliope. Mr Lawler - and Kathy Jackson - had already vehemently denied any involvement.
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Julia,
It might be worth taking out a free trial subscription. I took out the 1 month free trial subscription when they first put the online version behind a firewall. I was travelling to Vietnam at the time and it was excellent to be able to access pretty much all of the stuff that was on the printed version. Two months ago I was heading to Bali and applied again for a free month's trial subscription. It was given without any problems, even though I ticked the box to say I had previously subscribed for free and used the same userid. When that expired I applied again, thinking it would be rejected. Again it was given and I have a few weeks left on it.
I suspect they are not getting the amount of customers they anticipated and are willing to keep enticing those that have showed an interest in the hopes they will eventually get them to opt for a paid subscription.
Personally I wouldn't bother paying as I normally prefer to read The Australian when I am out for a coffee and I use the cafe's copy. I could also survive without it when overseas as there are free alternatives such as the Sydney Morning Herald.
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
Click the first link. It will take you to the article.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Fair+Work+Australia+chief+dismisses+Craig+Thomson%27s+claim+of+interference&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB
fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=rcsI picked it up from an interview with Eric Abetz on Sky News who claims Thompson has misled Parliament.
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Thanks, bellenuit. I've had the one month free sub. Attempted to repeat but was rejected.
I actually get "The Australian" hard copy delivered several days per week, so don't particularly want to subscribe as well.
I'd just appreciate it if people putting up a link to an article don't bother unless others can access the article. Or surely not too difficult to copy and paste if subscriber only?
Thank you, McLovin. Interview on "7.30" this evening was interesting too, highlighting the completely distinct divisions of FWA.Click the first link. It will take you to the article.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Fair+Work+Australia+chief+dismisses+Craig+Thomson%27s+claim+of+interference&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Patrick Cook's satirical musings on Craig and other matters.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/patrick-cook/4028210
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/patrick-cook/4028210
- Joined
- 25 September 2007
- Posts
- 1,712
- Reactions
- 13
Perhaps the Fair Work report has become an irrelevancy, but I must admit after watching the "boss" of Fair Work give a lame defence of the organisation, I was shaking my head.
Now I dont know what school of Ethics these Federal Court Judge clowns subscribe to, but if a Delegate is required to investigate a matter that his superior is in a marital-style relationship with someone who is both a central complainant and the subject of complaint, AND Lawler himself had poked his oar into HSU affairs ( as he did), then that in imo, 100% clearly fails the test of A) Direct Conflict. B) Percieved Conflict...jeez, how much worse can it get than that?
It would be my guess that is why the report took so long to complete.
If I was the delegate I would not have felt able to complete such a report without both written directive and legal advice. No wonder he is on "long-term" leave
I can only imagine he was close to retirement
Im unsure how it came to be that took place, but afaic the report is legal junk.
Our taxes pay these clowns
Now I dont know what school of Ethics these Federal Court Judge clowns subscribe to, but if a Delegate is required to investigate a matter that his superior is in a marital-style relationship with someone who is both a central complainant and the subject of complaint, AND Lawler himself had poked his oar into HSU affairs ( as he did), then that in imo, 100% clearly fails the test of A) Direct Conflict. B) Percieved Conflict...jeez, how much worse can it get than that?
It would be my guess that is why the report took so long to complete.
If I was the delegate I would not have felt able to complete such a report without both written directive and legal advice. No wonder he is on "long-term" leave
I can only imagine he was close to retirement
Im unsure how it came to be that took place, but afaic the report is legal junk.
Our taxes pay these clowns
To be a good liar, one should have a good memory as the link indicates.
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...mail/comments/thomson_contradicted_yet_again/
It's all happening!!!
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...mson-votes-with-coalition-20120530-1zi79.html
joea
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...mson-votes-with-coalition-20120530-1zi79.html
joea
There is no doubt the Labor Party put Thomson up to it as Tony Abbott stated Labor would want a pair if Thomsom went on sick leave.
Good thinking Tony not to fall into the Labor dodgie trap.
- Joined
- 16 June 2005
- Posts
- 4,281
- Reactions
- 6
And where are the lefties with their taunts that the opposition would accept a vote by Thomson?
It does look like a set-up though. It seems like Thomson needs his legal bills paid, so surely he will do whatever he is asked by the labor party.
