Bill Shorten - not a good look

[Andrew Bolt]

Labor leader Bill Shorten wades straight into strife at the royal commission into union corruption.

He is asked about a deal with the labor-hire company Unibuilt which had it employ an alleged “research officer”, Lance Wilson, a Young Labor campaigner who was picked by Shorten and in fact worked as manager of Shorten’s 2007 campaign to win the seat of Maribyrnong. The deal lasted from February to the election in November. Wilson then worked as Shorten’s electorate officer and then in his ministerial office.

Wilson’s services were donated to Shorten when he was national secretary of the Australian Workers Union. Meanwhile Unibuilt was negotiating a workplace deal with Shorten’s successor as Victorian AWU secretary, Cesar Melham. Shorten says he was not involved in those negotiations, even though the deal notionally covered more than one state and therefore needed Shorten’s approval as national secretary.

Shorten says once he picked Wilson he took him to meeting Unibuilt boss Ted Lockyer to employ Wilson for the benefit of Shorten. And he got the union to draw up a contract which (falsely) claimed Wilson would work as a research officer for Unibuilt.

Now, why would a boss want to donate a staffer - at $50,000 a year - for the personal advancement of a union head?

UPDATE

Shorten says a second person - who he does not want to name - worked on his election campaign and was paid for by the union. From “time to time” union officials would donate their help with letter-box drops. Another paid union official also helped at times.

Shorten denies having direct say on how the contract to hire Wilson was drawn up and dodges questions on why the contract described the job as a “research officer” for Unibuilt when he was actually a campaign director for Shorten, which Shorten concedes. “I cannot explain why the term was used.”

Shorten says he would have asked Unibuilt for the donation. Says he would not have been involved in the negotiation between the AWU Victorian branch and Unibuilt later in 2007 of an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. Says he does not recall Unibuilt asking for a favour in return. Notes the Unibuilt EBA had a 12 per cent pay rise over two and a half years.

Question: what is the national secretary of the union doing discussing a donation - an “advantage for yourself”?

Shorten arcs up: “I completely disagree with what you’ve said.”

UPDATE

Shorten concedes that Cat Sullivan, a national AWU staffer who worked on media, worked from “time to time” on Shorten’s campaign.

Shorten is taken through a list of people on the campaign - three campaign workers were AWU staffers and one was paid for by Unibuilt.

UPDATE

The Wilson arrangement was changed at some stage so that Wilson became an AWU Victorian branch employee, with the AWU invoicing Unibuilt for his wages. Shorten says Cesar Melham should asked about this change. Wilson, though, remained as Shorten’s campaign director.

Unibuilt later went broke. There is also a Unibilt, the same owner, which negotiated the EBA with the Victorian AWU.

UPDATE

Shorten denies that taking a donation from Unibuilt weakened the negotiating position of the AWU when it was negotiating a new EBA. The deal was good, he insists. “I don’t think there is any evidence this was a bad agreement.”

UPDATE

By September Shorten says he was campaigning “pretty much full time” for the election. As the AWU national secretary?

UPDATE

Unibuilt did not pay the AWU’s last invoice for $12,700 for Shorten’s campaign director. Shorten assumes the AWU wore it. “The AWU was very supportive ... of my campaign.”

UPDATE

Counsel assisting the commission, Jeremy Stoljar, adds up the donation from Unibuilt for his campaign director was about $40,000 (plus the $12,700 worn by the AWU when Unibuilt did not pay). Did he declare this donation to the Australian Electoral Commission?

Shorten says this has been brought to his attention “in the last few days”. The donation is missing from his signed declaration at the time. “There was an incomplete form sent to the ALP office.... and we have now updated it… within the last 144 hours.”

Ouch - Shorten is hurt:

Counsel: “Your proposition as I understand it, from your evidence this morning is that the $40,000-odd that Unibilt supplied to acquire Lance Wilson’s services was some form of donation. Did you declare that to the AEC, for example?”

Shorten: “Well, it’s come to my attention that the declaration hasn’t been made until very recently.”

Counsel: “Well, when you say very recently, what do you mean by that?”

Shorten: “In the last few days.”

UPDATE

In fact, Shorten asked Labor only on Monday to amend the return to the Australian Electoral Commission to include the Unibuilt donation for his campaign manager, plus another $12,000 from the AWU for a campaign worker.

UPDATE

Another tricky moment for Shorten. He admits he knew for “many months” that he had failed to declare the donation of Wilson’s salary. He says he did not declare then but waited until he received the full information from group certificates and other information before sending a letter to Labor asking it to correct his declaration.

The counsel assisting asks if it was a coincidence that Shorten sent his letter to Labor only on the day that evidence about this gift surfaced in the commission. Had he delayed until it was clear the royal commission had discovered this gift? Shorten denies it.

UPDATE

Shorten trying hard to distance himself from the appearance of breaking the law, saying it was common for politicians - he mentions Tony Abbott several times - to declare “nil return” when disclosing donations to the Australian Electoral Commission, while leaving it to the party to file an “omnibus” declaration for donations to all candidates. His failing was to misinform Labor, Shorten suggests (which isn’t breaking the law).

Well, that’s his argument and he’s sticking to it.

[Andrew Bolt]

The royal commission now turns to the 2006 deal with Cleanevent, approved by Bill Shorten as national secretary.

Cleanevent also gave the AWU Victorian branch up to $25,000 a year after the union traded off higher wages and casuals’ penalty rates, saving the company about $2 million.

Counsel assisting the commission asks Shorten about an email he was copied in on that was sent by AWU negotiator John-Paul Blandthorn to Ivan Dalla Costa from Cleanevent on October 20 2006 which noted: “I have spoken to the hierarchy of the AWU and they can’t afford to trade core award conditions at the moment, because we can’t afford other unions attacking us.”

Counsel: “Did you say that to Blandthorn?”

Shorten: “No, I wouldn’t have put it that way and I wouldn’t have thought that either.”

Shorten was the organiser responsible for Cleanevent from 1996. Says he does not know of Cleanevent workers were given forms allowing them to opt out of union membership.

UPDATE

Shorten says he was only aware in very recent times of the 2010 side-deal under which Cleanevent paid $25,000 a year to the union. Says had no discussions of similar deals in his time.

[Andrew Bolt]

BILL Shorten had a terrible day at the royal commission on Wednesday that didn’t just leave the Labor leader looking shifty.

It also turned the torch on the new breed of union bosses that infests Labor — careerists using union muscle and union cash to get themselves into Parliament.

And isn’t that the rap on Shorten? That this former Australian Workers Union boss is all ambition for himself?

Most obviously, of course, Shorten on Wednesday got caught out pocketing a disguised $40,000 gift from an employer that he did not disclose until four days ago.

That was a gift that stinks.

[Andrew Bolt]

A former Labor national secretary gets what many journalists of the Left refuse to:

A former national secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Bob Hogg, has called for Opposition Leader Bill Shorten to resign, accusing him of failing to understand the concept of conflict of interest.

Mr Hogg attacked Mr Shorten after the Labor leader on Wednesday admitted he had failed for eight years to reveal that a labour hire company had paid the salary of his campaign director in the 2007 election campaign.

The company had been involved at the time in negotiations with the Australian Workers Union for a new enterprise bargaining agreement for its workers, the royal commission into trade unions was told.

Mr Shorten told the royal commission he had not been involved in the enterprise bargaining negotiations with the company, Unibilt, as it had been handled by the Victorian branch of the AWU…

But Mr Hogg, in an angry open letter to Mr Shorten on social media, wrote: “Dear Bill - is the concept of conflict of interest beyond your understanding?"…

“Really?” he wrote. “His campaign director was paid for by a company whose employees were covered by Bill’s AWU, and therefore, as union members, deserved their interest to be protected to the maximum.

“The payment wasn’t declared until Bill was reminded eight years later: a real lapse of memory, sloppy book-keeping or a hope no-one would notice. Take your pick."…

“Let’s call a halt to defending the indefesible,” Mr Hogg said…

“Bill, do something for the ALP. It’s simple.

“Just go.”

[Andrew Bolt]

Paul Murray demolishes the media Left spin that there were “no smoking gun” against Bill Shorten in the royal commission yesterday.
http://www.skynews.com.au/video/program ... quiry.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why did an employer donate to Bill Shorten’s personal advantage? Did the employer’s workers know about this deal when Shorten’s union was negotiating a workplace deal for them? Why was the donation disguised? What was it not declared?

UPDATE

The Sydney Morning Herald’s website isn’t keen to report on Bill Shorten’s horror day at the royal commission:




And even then you get a who-cares report that starts like this:

Bill Shorten isn’t the first politician to be embarrassed by a late campaign declaration, and he won’t be the last.

UPDATE

Jeffrey Phillips SC says this is serious:

The fundamental or more dangerous question which is being hinted at is whether the Unibilt contribution to Shorten’s campaign had any connection to the negotiations for the EBA?

Was it a secret or was the contribution fully disclosed to the ­employees to be or covered by the EBA? Could the employees have done better in the negotiations?

Would they have voted to ­approve the EBA’s terms had it been transparently revealed that the employer had made or would make a substantial contribution to the union’s most senior official’s political campaign?

Should it have been a secret contribution — and it is not for me to decide whether it was or not — prosecutors may be asked to consider whether any other law may have been breached.

A prosecutor may be asked to consider the provisions of section 176 of the Victorian Crimes Act. That section renders the receipt of any favour to an agent for the doing or not doing of any act in ­relation to the principal’s business without the knowledge of the principal as unlawful. One would have to ask the question: who is the principal? Was it the union or was it the employees to be covered by the EBA?…

Unless there is a cache of documents or emails pointing to a ­secret commission, or someone ­involved in the negotiations comes forward to reveal their ­nature, there would be no credible material to launch a prosecution.

[Andrew Bolt]

Bill Shorten today is being asked about why he got Theiss John Holland to pay his Australian Workers Union $100,000 a year for three years in a deal over the East Link project in Victoria.

Says doesn’t recollect specific figures, but wanted bosses to pay for things like health safety training.

Shorten says it’s not his recollection to have asked for that $100,000 a year.

Shorten is filibustering here and refusing to give direct answers to the questions of counsel assisting, Jeremy Stoljar.

Shorten is asked about whether the union actually provided the $33,000 of health and safety training mentioned in one invoice. Shorten refuses to give a yes or no answer, but says was no longer state secretary and suggests the union would have delivered such training. “No reason” to believe the training would not have been done. Is asked whether this isn’t part of the $100,000-a-year deal Shorten actually negotiated. Repeats that he would not have been party to issuing invoices for services not delivered.

UPDATE

Shorten says he was publisher of the Australian Worker magazine as national secretary and says cannot understand why the Victorian branch was charging for advertising to it. He is shown invoices from 2006 and is told can’t find advertisements that the Victorian branch charged for. Shorten says he was not Victorian secretary any more and does not have an explanation for it. Shorten then gives his third or fourth speech of the morning. Adds that he would not have been party to issuing false invoices.

Shorten is grilled over the union being paid by John Holland for ads that didn’t appear in the union magazine and training that John Holland had itself paid for, as Stoljar says, just to reach the $110,000 a year (including GST) John Holland had agreed to pay under the deal Shorten had negotiated. Shorten’s answer? The invoices were issued after his time. And the workplace deal was good.

UPDATE

Stoljar: I don’t think it addresses my question. My question was to your knowledge did the joint venture agree to pay the AWU $100,000 a year plus GST for the three-year life of the (Eastlink) project.

Shorten: I don’t believe that was the case…

Stoljar: Isn’t the position this, that invoices were being issued simply to make up amounts of a yearly instalment, $100,000, and regard was given as to whether - in many cases - the services for which payments were claimed had actually been provided?

Shorten: In my case, completely untrue. I do not believe that.

UPDATE

Whack. Royal commissioner Dyson Heydon has had enough of Shorten’s filibustering and evasions. “What I’m concerned about is your credibility as a witness.” Warns Shorten that his “credibility as a witness” is at stake. “a lot of your answers are non-responsive”. or introduce “extraneous” material, Shorten is making progress slow and it would be in his “best interests” to give more direct answers, even though Heydon understands from newspaper reports the pressure on Shorten to vindicate himself.

Brutal.

The lecture triggers some more direct answers at last. Shorten says it may well be that there would have been discussion about training and the like in discussions with John Holland. It could have involved delivering services to members. Doesn’t recall these discussions being in writing. Doesn’t recall a specific amount of $100,000 a year plus GST. Stoljar notes wasn’t declared in EBA. Shorten says wouldn’t be.

Is asked if there is a perception of conflict of interests. Avoids yes or no.

[Andrew Bolt]

UPDATE

More deals. Why did Shorten negotiate a workplace deal that had ACI later pay nearly $500,000 to the union? Why make a deal with Chiquita Mushrooms which cut permanent jobs and saved the company millions - yet also won the AWU monthly payments of $4000 for “education”.


Stoljar: The problem is where you’re negotiating an EBA which contemplates a drastic reductions of the numbers of workers and other changes to those workers. Do you accept that there is a major conflict of interest when the union at the same time negotiates a secret deal pursuant to which payments will be made to the union?

Shorten just can’t see it.

[Andrew Bolt]

Labor leader Bill Shorten smears Dyson Heydon, the head of the royal commission into union corruption and a former High Court judge:

He has got a job to do. I get that. It’s Tony Abbott’s royal commission.

How despicable. So Labor.

Shorten gets exposed soliciting $40,000 donation to him personally from a boss whose workers he is meant to be representing. He gets exposed soliciting donations to his union from bosses whose workers he is meant to representing. His union gets exposed issuing phoney invoices to bosses for work not done.

And how does Shorten respond? By smearing the royal commissioner as a Liberal stooge.

[Andrew Bolt]

Another deal Bill Shorten struggles to explain:

Bill Shorten knowingly signed an enterprise bargaining agreement which meant thousands of cleaners would be paid below the industry award in a deal that he knew would not pass the Fair Work Commission’s “no-disadvantage test”, the royal commission into unions has heard.

The commission was provided yesterday with minutes of an AWU Victoria meeting in June 2004, which note that Mr Shorten stated the “issue” concerning the “no-disadvantage test and the casua­l event rate” relating to cleaning company Cleanevent did not affect AWU members, who were “overall, happy with the agreement”.

Enterprise bargaining agreements must not disadvantage workers by locking them into deals where they are paid less than ­industry award rates. To ensure this does not occur, unions and employers entering into agreements must provide the Fair Work Commission with sworn statutory declarations stating whether proposed deals place workers in a worse position than under the relevant industry award…

In the Fair Work Commission transcript, the commissioner explic­itly states that he was “relying on the statutory declarations” when approving the deal on the grounds it did not fail the Fair Work test.

Mr Shorten agreed on Wednesday that the statutory declaration had been inaccurate…

Despite stating that workers were “overall happy” with the 2004 deal, it appeared that no meeting of Cleanevent employees had been held to discuss it.

Mr Shorten said he could not remember any meeting, but suspected he had become aware workers supported the deal because union members had told him so.

A motive is suggested:

The commission has also been investigating whether the AWU artificially inflated member numbers by charging Cleanevent $25,000 a year in membership fees.

And another:

In the early 2000s Shorten sat down with executives of the Thiess John Holland joint venture to negotiate a workplace agreement for the $2.5 billion EastLink road project in Melbourne.

Together they struck an agreement, ground-breaking in its flexibility, that saved the company as much as $100 million…

But evidence before the commission points to a side deal under which Shorten appears to have asked for payments to the union.

Internal AWU documents, and emails between the joint venture and the union, point to an informal agreement under which the company agreed to pay the union $100,000 plus GST a year over three years.

The union then issued what appear to be either bogus or exaggerated invoices for services, training and events, in what appears an agreed plan by the company and union to justify the $300,000.

Fairfax Media understands Thiess John Holland executives were in no doubt that the money was in reality a thank-you payment in return for the flexibility of the workplace agreement.

Shorten told the commission he did not recall a deal for $300,000 in side payments to the AWU. He later revised his position to say he may have raised the provision of training and other services with the joint venture.

If, as seems likely, the executives concerned are called to give evidence on these negotiations, Shorten would have cause for concern…

.How the money was really spent remains unclear. And there is no suggestion of personal benefit to Shorten or his officials.

[Rorschach]

Bill was on the ABC news all morning... now that was NOT a good look...
world class hypocrite!!!