This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Will Craig Thomson finally give us some relief?

Jump to new
Where is Thommo in the last 72 hours?

Me thinks Labor have created a media diversion with all the talk of skilled immigrants coming in.

History repeatig itself again with Labor. At least it has given poor old Craig a break over the weekend.
 
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
 
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?
 
Calliope said:
The article doesn't say that. There was no comment from the PC.
Click to expand...

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,

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.
 

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-GBfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs
 
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?

McLovin said:
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-GBfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs
Click to expand...
Thank you, McLovin. Interview on "7.30" this evening was interesting too, highlighting the completely distinct divisions of FWA.
 
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
 
awg said:
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.
Click to expand...

It seems that nothing is "a matter for him" makes you wonder what is and why he's even there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fair Work - Crook Deck: High Stakes Poker
7 8 9
Replies
173
Views
17K
sails
Fair Work Head Honcho Hides Risque Report
Replies
4
Views
4K
Calliope
State tax reform
Replies
0
Views
4K
sydboy007
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...