You can read more of the AWU's history at its website here.
Imagine the flogging those blokes would give a maggot like Shorten.
#ausunions history. On this day 129 years ago @AWUnion formed in the back room of Fern's Hotel in Ballarat. pic.twitter.com/2WaFnsQe9m
— Andrew Casey (@AndrewSCasey) June 15, 2015
And Stu of NT has Labor on the record, bringing its unique genius to the discussion.
New ground broken at TURC - 174 times today we heard the word "recall"
Previously - at the AWU Melhem/Shorten hearings
Here are the transcripts of the 3 days so far
Day one, 28 June - "recall" was used 39 times.
Day two, 29 June - there were 52 "recalls"
Day three, yesterday was all Cesar Melhem and the word "recall" was used 129 times.
One would hope that there's been no coaching - but it's very frustrating to hear otherwise functional people suddenly lose the faculty of memory in the witness box.
Fairfax with this lovely story from 2009.
Good Samaritan ... Brian Tapp, left, found Adam Morison’s wallet and passport and rushed them to the airport so he could catch his flight in time Photo: Dallas Kilponen
FOR Brian Tapp, not even having a horror day could overcome his bowerbird instincts. Driving along Alison Road in Randwick last month, the 59-year-old florist was contemplating failure: evicted from his Clovelly shopfront that morning, he was transferring some effects to his base in Kingsford.
Continue reading "Adam Morrison, his wallet and his surfing holiday in Bali" »
Low paid parliament cleaners set to lose $7000 PY, Abbott always hits working people first, low paid hardest #auspol pic.twitter.com/WLvQkBDywi
— Wayne Swan (@SwannyQLD) June 14, 2015
Standing up for striking cleaners at Plt House for #internationalcleanersday Their already meagre pay has been cut pic.twitter.com/7axHvOLpMM
— Senator Penny Wright (@PennyWrites) June 14, 2015
I stand w @UnitedVoiceOz Parliament House Cleaners who are on strike because of pay cuts #internationalcleanersday pic.twitter.com/HOsEFs9iBM
— Lisa Chesters MP (@LMChesters) June 14, 2015
@chriskkenny @GreenJ How many innocents did that 'moral high ground' kill? pic.twitter.com/3FyRgM5iSW
— stuart (@stuwd) June 14, 2015
#TURoyalComm Live stream of today's CFMEU Cbus hearing from 10am http://t.co/ORxccxu2p3 #turc #auspol #ausunions
— TU Royal Commission (@TURoyalComm) June 14, 2015
10AM the Commission is sitting - the first witness is Brian Parker. He took the affirmation.
Senior Counsel Assisting Ms McNaughton SC asked Mr Parker if he was, until 9 June, the State Secretary NSW for the CFMEU - she added that on 9 June Mr Parker stood down, is that correct Mr Parker?
"No, I stood aside."
After a few blustery answers to questions Ms McNaughton said testily, "Do you have a particular problem with your memory Mr Parker?"
The Stewards have called for the "Can't-Recall-Ometer" to be deployed, the hackneyed phrase is already getting a bashing.
Mr Parker was shown an email from the SuperPartners workers and the CBUS CFMEU coordinator confirming the details of the request for information about LisCon - with no mention of arrears details.
Mr PARKER agreed with Ms McNaughton about the contents of the email.
Mr Parker did not agree that he asked for that information. He said he simply asked for "information" about the LisCon employees. Nothing out of the ordinary. Just a normal request.
Ms McNaughton pressed the matter - why did Parker call the CBUS CEO Mr Atkin, "I'm not sure, I know I rang Mr Atkin on that day."
Ms McNaughton, "What are you not sure about?"
"Well I rang Mr Atkin on that day, I just can't recall what it was about".
Ms McNaughton, "I put it to you that you do recall and that you asked Mr Atkin for personal information about Liscon employees".
"That's not correct".
Ms McNaughton quizzed Mr Parker about emails associated with the LisCon information - she asked if he was familiar with the request process, "No" - Ms McNaughton, "You get other people to do that for you do you?" Parker sensing the trap, "No, not always".
Parker in one answer, "I don't know, I can't recall, no."
Ms McNaughton, "Which one is it, can't recall, don't know or no".
McNaughton, "So it's possible?"
Parker, "No, it's not, it didn't happen".
McNaughton, "How can you say that when you can't recall, and you don't know?"
Mr Parker is really on the ropes, Ms McNaughton is all over him like a rash. He's sounding somewhat ridiculous, he states that he had a 22 minute conversation with Mr McWhinney at CBUS during which the topic of conversation was "his golf handicap, there you go".
Ms McNaughton, "There you go? Are you being flippant with me Mr Parker?"
No.
The Commissioner has intervened to direct Mr Parker to answer the questions put to him.
Ms McNaughton SC has put a warning to Mr Parker - she reminded him of his Affirmation to tell the truth and that he is appearing before a Royal Commission. She has Dunn and Browned him on not telling the truth to the Commission, he said, "Well I suggest to you that it is true."
Mr Parker can recall that he asked Mr Atkin for "information" about LisCon. He can't recall anything else about the call, only that he asked for "information" about LisCon.
Ms McNaughton has read the evidence of Lisa Zanatta relating her conversation with Parker. Zanatta stated that Parker asked for member names and addresses - Zanatta states that she referred Parker to the CEO, Atkin. Parker said, "I possibly did talk to the CEO, to get information about LisCon". He denies Zanatta's account. Ms McNaughton said, "if you can't recall, how do you know you did not ask for the addresses of LisCon employees?" "I only asked for normal information".
Ms McNaughton asked Mr Parker about a telephone conversation he had with Ms Zanatta on the Friday afternoon when she organised her trip to Sydney to drop the unlawfully released CBUS information off to Parker. Unsurprisingly the contents of this phone conversation are categorised "Sorry, I can't recall" - unlike other conversations of the time which he recalls with uncanny clarity.
Ms McNaughton, "you have a particularly poor memory for someone in such a senior job, don't you?"
Parker can recall that he was in Canberra on the day in question - he volunteered that he was in Canberra. Ms McNaughton asked if he was in Canberra on 26 (Friday) as well as 29 (Monday). He got a bit flustered sensing the trap - now he says he knows he was in Canberra only because he has since checked his diary.
The extraordinary detail and contemporaneous corroboration from phone records, text messages and other records from the time taken as a whole point to Ms Zanatta and Ms Butera having spoken to Mr Parker on the Friday and the Monday. Ms McNaughton put the Zanatta and Butera sworn evidence to Mr Parker - he says the conversations didn't happen. Somehow amongst all the "I can't recalls" he can recall what didn't happen.
Ms McNaughton is very, very good. Parker doesn't make sense and Ms McNaughton does. He gives infantile responses like, "I know it because I know it."
Parker now qualifying answers with, "No, honestly I can't recall".
Ms McNaughton took Mr Parker to a phone record setting out a 6 minute conversation with Lisa Zanatta and to Zanatta's evidence that during the conversation Parker said "the data is safe and secure and no one will have access to it". Predictably, Parker can't recall.
Ms McNaughton asked Mr Parker a series of questions about last year's "Safety Dinner" hosted by the CFMEU held in May. He gave a series of direct answers to direct questions - yes he recalls the dinner, yes he spoke to Ms Zanatta at the dinner, yes it was at drinks - do you remember what you spoke about? "I can't recall". Ms Zanatta's recollection of the dinner was recorded by the Commission in December last year - she has given detailed evidence of her conversation with Mr Parker and that has been put to Parker. He states he cannot recall having had that conversation. He states that he remembers having a conversation with Ms Zanatta - but not "in that context".
Mr Parker has been quizzed about this very disturbing evidence from Ms Butera.
Mr Parker is tying himself in knots. He's given far too much detail in his alternative explanation - he's described the meeting as having taken place in a coffee shop with some arrangements put in place for the meeting in advance. He was quizzed about why a meeting with Zanatta and Butera in a coffee shop was necessary at all. He was very flustered and gave some concoction about sponsorship arrangements and "the insurance business". A very unconvincing performance from Mr Parker.
AT 1130 THE COMMISSION ADJOURNED FOR MORNING TEA
Mr Parker may rue the day he brought so much detail to the Commission regarding the "coffee shop meeting". The invitation, phone records, taxi records et al are all eminently discoverable. I'm sure the Commission's staff is on to the corroboration task now.
AT 1145 THE COMMISSION RESUMED
Ms McNaughton quizzed Mr Parker about his exquisite recollection of the coffee shop meeting, she drilled into the details, how'd you get there, how'd you leave, did you leave with women etc. He was quizzed about whether or not they discussed the LisCon arrears - he states they did not. He stumbles and demurs when dissembling.
He was read evidence given to the Commission by Ms Zanatta and Ms Butera in which very detailed accounts of conversations with Mr Parker were recorded. Mr Parker states that the conversations did not happen. Ms McNaughton Dunn and Browned Mr Parker on his evidence in this instance - he denied her suggestions. Cactus.
Zanatta and Butera have similar recollections - that Parker told them to say that the information wasn't sent to Parker, he had nothing to do with it. If asked they were to say that Fitzpatrick was the source of the information.
Ms McNaughton SC put very detailed propositions to Mr Parker about his meeting with David Atkin - the thrust of her suggestions was that Parker and Atkin got together to "get their stories straight" and that they did that with the intention to deceive authorities who might inquire into what really went on with the Liscon leaks. Parker can't recall, it didn't happen etc etc.
At midday Ms McNaughton completed her very impressive examination of Slippery-Sparkles.
Mr Agius for the CFMEU had a couple of questions.
Mr Morrison is now on his feet, "Is the reason you stepped aside as State Secretary because they don't let people with such shocking memories to be the state secretary?"
Parker is ruffled. The question was objected to - the Commissioner allowed it.
Morrison went on, "have you told the members of your shocking memory?"
Objection on the basis that there's an unproven assumption - i.e. that Mr Parker has a "shocking memory".
The Commissioner allowed the question.
Morrison, "When did you discover that your memory was fading?"
Objection - the Commissioner said "it's a type of cross-examination outside my experience" but he allowed the question.
Parker, "I believe that I have the same memory as other people".
It got even more fiery, "Did you provide a character reference for George Alex in his criminal proceedings?"
Parker, "Not to my knowledge, no, I have no knowledge of it."
"Why did you step aside from your position?"
"Because it was extremely hard to focus on my job."
Mr Morrison asked the very sensible question, "So you stopped doing your job - to do what? What are you doing?"
Mumble, mumble etc.
Morrison, "So you stepped aside to prepare for these proceedings?"
Morrison, "How long is your concentration span?"
Morrison, "They must be very short meetings because you can't remember anything Mr Parker, that's the case isn't it?"
All of Morrison's questions were objected to - the Commissioner allowed them.
Morrison, "You may as well just go back to work, because you can't remember anything?"
Morrison, "You remember less and less as you review the material?"
Parker, "I don't review the material at all."
Objection - the Commissioner allowed the question and answer. He also lectured the objector.
Mr Parker reiterated the highly questionable and somewhat stupid answer, "I don't review the material".
Morrison, "Why do you get your own special lawyer?"
Objection - The Commissioner allowed it.
"Who's paying?" That question was ruled out.
MOrrison, "Did anyone tell you that having a poor memory and saying things like I can't recall was the way to avoid a perjury charge?"
"Do you think you might have brain damage?"
"Have you had yourself checked out?"
"Are you on medication?"
"Do you smoke Cannabis?"
"Are you doing any mental exercises to improve your memory so you can assist the Commission?"
"Do you ever read the transcripts of your previous evidence?" "No." Incredible.
Mr Morrison read out the press release from the CFMEU about Parker stepping aside to "focus on the Commission's proceedings - and to clear your name".
Morrison's line of questioning is devastating. Parker taking time off to prepare for the Commission's proceedings- and then fronts up and can't remember a flamin' thing.
Parker reiterated that he does not review his prior evidence. He didn't read all the statements, didn't read the Exhibits - he read very little material, "that's my answer".
Mr Morrison quizzed Mr Parker about the illogicality of his evidence that he called Atkin to ask for "information" Liscon. It was a very effective line of questioning - Parker's evidence makes no sense, what does "information" mean, particularly in the context of the "information" already being in the CFMEU's hands.
Morrison read the transcript of Parker's previous evidence where he stated that it "was possible" that he discussed with Ms Zanatta her plans to bring the information to Sydney. He now states he "can't recall" and that there was no possibility that he had that discussion with Ms Zanatta.
Mr Parker was shown David Atkin's file note purporting to record their conversation.
Mr Parker agrees that he read this file note last week - The Commissioner specifically asked him whether he read this document while sitting outside the hearing room - Parker agreed that he did.
Mr Parker now states that he doesn't recall the conversation taking place.
Mr Morrison put to Mr Parker that he uses the phrase "I can't recall" in order to avoid exposure to a perjury charge. Parker said, "that's a lie".
The Morrison fireworks finished at 12.52PM. Very, very damaging to Mr Parker's credibility.
Ms Heath asked, "are you a personal friend of David Atkin?" Parker was very animated, "absolutely not". Ms Heath elicited further details from Mr Parker - whose evidence on this point was animated and of a different character from his "can't recall" evidence. He seems to be at pains to let us know that Atkin is not his friend, he only deals with him on union related matters.
Ms Heath pressed him on the number of calls, did he have exchange text messages with Mr Atkin etc. He now, "can't recall".
Here's a movie Mr Parker might like to enjoy during his time off from the job as Secretary.
AT 1PM THE COMMISSION ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH AND PHONE CALLS TO GET THE STORIES STRAIGHT
AT 2PM MS HEATH CONTINUED WITH HER EXAMINATION OF MR PARKER
Mr Parker was quizzed about how he came to have David Atkin's mobile telephone number. He agreed with Ms Heath that Dave Noonan might have given it to him.
Then this very telling question - "So is Mr Atkin's telephone number still in your mobile?"
Parker, "I don't know".
Parker was asked if he had his mobile phone - it's in the hearing room with another person.
Ms Heath has asked for the phone to be produced. Senior Counsel Assisting will arrange for an examination of the phone to see if the text message between Parker and Atkin is still on the phone.
AT 2.13PM MS HEATH COMPLETED HER EXAMINATION
There were few further questions - senior counsel assisting had no further questions.
THE COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED BRIEFLY FOR THE EXAMINATION OF MR PARKER'S PHONE.
AT 2.21 THE COMMISSION RESUMED.
Nothing relevant was found on Mr Parker's phone.
THE COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED UNTIL 10AM THURSDAY FOR FURTHER CFMEU/George Alex HEARINGS.
#TURoyalComm resumes Thurs 18 June at 10am to hear further matters into the CFMEU #turc #auspol #ausunions
— TU Royal Commission (@TURoyalComm) June 15, 2015
Creep - Exhibit One (thanks to Underminder for the tip)
Creep - Exhibit Two
Tough time of it ... Employment Minister Bill Shorten.
EMPLOYMENT Minister Bill Shorten ruled out any immediate increase to the $13,000 a year Newstart allowance yesterday, despite declaring he finds it "hard to make ends meet" on his much larger salary of about $330,000.
He spoke out as the federal government comes under pressure to increase the $35-a-day dole.
Lobby groups at a government inquiry into the Newstart rate said the size of welfare handouts should be set by a tribunal just like politicians' wages.
Mr Shorten admitted the unemployment benefit was tough to live on - adding that so was his wage.
"I think it would be very difficult to live on $249 (a week)," he said. "I've got a young family, I find it hard enough to make ends meet currently and I've got a job."
Earlier, the hearing heard evidence that Australians could not survive on the current dole rate of $35 a day and were falling well below the poverty line, with calls to raise the rate by $50 a week.
Groups as diverse as the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Council of Social Services, in submissions made to the inquiry, said the rate must be boosted because it does not meet community standards of adequacy.
Treasurer Wayne Swan did not answer twice when asked yesterday if he could live off the dole rate of $35 a day.
The government has claimed an increase to the rate could be a disincentive to finding work.
THE COMMISSIONER: ......to have an agreement which will allow an employer to give less by way of remuneration or conditions to employees without having to seek a variation of the agreement could be a problem, and I just hope the parties will note that.
Here's a link to Bill Shorten's sweetheart Agreement with Clean Event Pty Ltd.
On 20 December, 2004 the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) heard the application to certify the deal - here is a link to the transcript of proceedings (thank you to the incomparable Seeker of Truth for the tip):
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 
O/N 9536
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMISSION
COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD
AG2004/8648
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION
OF AGREEMENT
Application under section 170LJ of the Act
by the Australian Workers' Union - Victoria
Branch and Another for certification of the
Cleanevent Australia Pty Ltd Enterprise
Agreement 2004
MELBOURNE
12.08 PM, MONDAY, 20 DECEMBER 2004
These were formal legal proceedings of record where parties are expected to tell the truth. The AWU and Clean Event briefed counsel, as did the Liquor and Hospitality union.
MR C. WINTER: I appear on behalf of the Australian Workers Union.
PN2
MR B. McNAB: I appear on behalf of Cleanevent.
PN3
MR J.W. NOLAN: I seek leave to appear for the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, to intervene.
In 2004 the AIRC had to be satisfied proposed Enterprise Agreements passed a "No Disadvantage Test".
This test compared a proposed agreement to an underpinning and relevant award that had or should have covered employees up until the proposal for an agreement.
The No Disadvantage Test weighed the benefits of the award against the proposed agreement to ensure that, overall, employees were no worse off.
Here's what Shorten's lawyer said ostensibly on behalf of the workers - this is on Shorten's instructions:
THE COMMISSIONER: Good. Now, Mr Winter, my question: do you generally assert that this agreement meets the no disadvantage test?
PN36
MR WINTER: Yes, we believe it does and - - -
PN37
THE COMMISSIONER: Good, that is sufficient, Mr Winter. Just a general question, I am looking for a yes, or basically a brief answer. But the flexibility provisions: are they anticipating that flexibility will be up or will it be both and down?
PN38
MR WINTER: We see that the flexibility provision will be basically up; that there will be - during different events there will need to be discussions between the parties on how to best operate the agreement in relation to those events. They include things like the Commonwealth Games, etcetera.
PN39
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, there is little concern about flexibility provisions which improve conditions of employment, but to have an agreement which will allow an employer to give less by way of remuneration or conditions to employees without having to seek a variation of the agreement could be a problem, and I just hope the parties will note that.
PN40
MR McNAB: That is understood, Commissioner.
PN41
THE COMMISSIONER: Good. Now, have you anything else to say, Mr Winter?
PN42
MR WINTER: Unless you have any further questions, I would rely on the statutory declarations. It has been for a re-vote and that is shown in the statutory declarations.
PN43
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, and it was solidly supported, as I recall.
PN44
MR WINTER: Yes, it was overwhelming.
PN45
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN46
MR WINTER: We can provide that information if you require it.
PN47
THE COMMISSIONER: But I am pleased to note that I think the retrospective payments have already been made to a number of employees.
PN48
MR WINTER: Only to the full timers. The casuals are waiting for their Christmas present at the moment.
PN49
THE COMMISSIONER: Are they? Well, there you go. It is even more important that we get this done. Mr McNab, anything else to say?
PN50
MR McNAB: Nothing further to add, Commissioner.
PN51
THE COMMISSIONER: Good, thank you. Well, having considered the submissions of the parties and the statutory declaration - of course, I take note of the undertakings given by the LHMU - sorry, the AWU and the company to the LHMU, but I am satisfied that the agreement meets the relevant requirements of the Act. The employees have been given the relevant notice of the intention to enter into the agreement. The terms of the agreement have been explained in an appropriate way. The agreement has been approved by a valid majority of employees, and lodged within the time period prescribed.
PN52
The Commission is satisfied the agreement meets the no disadvantage test. It contains the necessary dispute settlement procedure, specifies a nominal expiry date in accordance with the Act's requirements, and is not inconsistent with the decisions of the Commission in regard to matters pertaining between the employee and employer. I, therefore, propose to certify the agreement as sought by the parties. This matter is adjourned.
ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [12.17pm]
I would love to see (and I will as soon as we can pull the file) the statutory declarations about the workers from Clean Event voting on Bill Shorten's sell-out Agreement. That'll be a doozy. If you were a worker at Clean Event in 2004, can you recall voting to lose your overtime?
Finally here's some great analysis from industrial relations consultant Grace Collier published in The Australian online here. Grace pulls Shorten's Enterprise Agreement to bits!