The Hon. Bill Shorten is scheduled to appear on July 8 when #TURoyalComm resumes its hearing into the AWU #turc #auspol #ausunions
— TU Royal Commission (@TURoyalComm) June 18, 2015
But @billshortenmp will be required to appear in more than one sitting. pic.twitter.com/bR4773lab0
— Sabra Lane (@SabraLane) June 18, 2015
At 2PM the Commission resumed its hearings.
5 further telephone intercepts were received into evidence without being played to the Commission.
Mr Parker was shown a range of text messages between himself and Mr Alex that were procured by the Commission as the result of NSW Police executing a search warrant on George Alex.
Mr Parker agrees that he understands how the Commission acquired the text messages and their provenance.
Mr Parker was quizzed about a call he made in 2013 to George Alex - at the time the CFMEU was active in a matter that involved bounced cheques and other problems with contractors. Mr Parker claims no recollection of the call.
Mr Parker recalled visiting Mr Alex at his apartment building after being shown a text to himself with directions to the apartment.
Mr Parker was shown a text which Ms McNaughton refrained from reading out loud, she described it as a "joke" saying, "That's a bit personal isn't it?"
Mr Parker replied, "I get plenty of jokes."
Ms McNaughton read out a text from Alex to Parker, "Are you free this weekend?"
Mr Parker answered, "He obviously wanted to talk to me about the industry or something."
Ms McNaughton, "do you recall seeing him on the weekend?"
Parker can't.
Ms McNaughton read a series of texts between Parker and Alex. The texts tell the story that Mr Parker attended the Alex apartment on a Friday evening - several hours after leaving Mr Alex sends a text to Mr Parker, "All good mate" and Mr Parker responds with a text, "Thanks, you're a great man".
Ms McNaughton asked Mr Parker, "What's that about? Did Mr Alex provide you with some sort of service or favour?"
Mr Parker gave the somewhat difficult to believe answer, "it might have been about membership applications or other paperwork".
Ms McNaughton, "you weren't personally attending upon him for him to provide you with some favour".
Ms McNaughton has spent about 20 minutes detailing the record of telephone and text exchanges between Mr Alex and Mr Parker during a few days in 2013. For persons who do not have a personal relationship, they certainly communicated a lot.
Ms McNaughton read a cryptic text about a "toga" or similar and asked Mr Parker what it was about. Mr Parker claimed to have no idea, saying "it doesn't make any sense". Very quickly Ms McNaughton said, "we have not extracted any texts from the intercepts where you say to Mr Alex, "That doesn't make any sense", quite the opposite in fact, Mr Alex and Mr Parker seem to very easily and confidently communicate about what to the outside observer appears to be cryptic or perhaps coded comments.
(thanks to Seeker of Truth for the education in the Alex vernacular)
Ms McNaughton, "Does the 'space full-stop' in these texts mean anything to you?" "No, I've got no idea about that".
Mr Parker was shown a Fairfax Media article which apparently refers to him and Mr Alex saying, "Mr Alex who has links to drug dealers and bikies......" and was shown a text message or telephone call from himself to Mr Alex which was made shortly after the media article was published. Mr Parker said, "this is the first time I've ever seen this article". Right.
After some discussion, Mr Parker said, "yeah, I might have been ringing Mr Alex to talk about the media". Ms McNaughton said, "Why would you ring him about it". "To get the run-down of the media".
3PM - One hour in and the reading of the texts continues.
Mr Parker was shown a paragraph in his statement in which he swears that he has no personal or social relationship with George Alex. He reiterates that evidence.
In an ominous sounding question Ms McNaughton asked, "did you ever go to lunch with Mr Joe Antoun and Mr Westaway and other men?" No.
Mr Parker was asked, "Do you know if you've ever been referred to as Blinky?" "No."
AT 3.12PM MS McNAUGHTON TOLD THE COMMISSIONER A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WOULD BE TERRIFIC - THE COMMISSION SO ADJOURNED.
5 minutes later the Commission resumed - minus Mr Parker, The Commissioner sent a runner to retrieve him.
Parker returned to hear his phone intercepted during 2014. It's a particularly bad portent for Mr Parker, because if Mr "Cocik" is not the subject of a police telephone intercept (this recording from July last year) then Parker is. Such warrants are only issued for very serious crimes usually carrying a penalty of at least 7 years gaol.
(apologies for the audio break in the above intercept)
Mr Parker was shown evidence he has previously given the Commission in which he stated emphatically that he does not own any racehorses. He has been handed a document to read. It sounds ominous for him.
The document is the registration document for a racehorse named Obe Park Rose. The owner is named as Barbara O'Brien - whose share is 20%. Peter John O'Brien is the next owner, the Grant Parker who owns 50% - then Brian Leonard Parker - singed 14 December 2012 with a signature. Parker is asked, "Is that your signature?"
"No, no that's not my signature" PAUSE "It might be".
Parker explained that Grant Parker is his brother. He went on to say "this is a brood mare, it does't race".
In a very ominous development for Mr Parker, the Commission was told that it would hear a telephone intercept involving Mr Parker's mobile phone in a conversation with the NSW horse trainer Bruce Cross - the call was recorded on 30 July, 2014. That means that Mr Parker's phone is the subject of the interception warrant and the warrant was active last year. The conditions for the issuance of such a warrant in NSW generally mean that the person subject to the intercept may be reasonably believed liable to charges that carry a 7 year gaol sentence.
Mr Parker was told that he would hear another telephone intercept, this is a recording of a conversation between him and Mace Hirani recorded on 7 August, 2014, the day prior to the execution of an EBA with one of the Alex associated phoenix companies.
AT 4PM THE COMMISSION ADJOURNED UNTIL 10AM TOMORROW
Here's Muso's note to me today
I grew up there, got married there - we had our kids there, made our life there, played all my music there and will always have a part of me there.
(source - Bill Shorten Twitter)
Bill Shorten has asked the Royal Commission to change its timing to accommodate his personal preferences. I can't think of another witness who's had the chutzpah to try that on.
Here's News Limited's report - which includes a reference to a letter from Shorten's lawyer to the Commission.
BILL Shorten wants to testify at the trade union Royal Commission as soon as possible, rather than endure months of harassment by the Abbott Government over his record as Australian Workers’ Union chief.
The embattled Opposition Leader is not scheduled to front the Commission (TURC) until August or September, but is under pressure to make a public statement as he comes under mounting attack by the Government over workplace deals he negotiated while AWU boss.
While Mr Shorten’s legal team has advised him not to speak out before his TURC appearance, political advisers have warned that any public statement could fuel further conjecture and attacks from the Coalition.
Mr Shorten’s lawyer Leon Zwie today asked for the early hearing in a letter to the solicitor assisting the Commission, James Beaton.
“Without waiving Mr Shorten’s legal professional privilege, Mr Shorten has been advised by me not to answer questions or comment on the issues that may be the subject of his appearance before the Commission,” Mr Zwie has written.
“Mr Shorten has therefore instructed me to write to you to request that the Commission bring forward the date of his proposed appearance from August/September to July when the Parliament is in winter recess.
“Mr Shorten desires to bring forward the date of his appearance so that he may address all issues of interest to the Commission at the earliest mutually convenient time.”
#TURoyalComm CFMEU hearing will commence today with a live stream from 10am http://t.co/ORxccxu2p3 #turc #auspol #ausunions
— TU Royal Commission (@TURoyalComm) June 17, 2015
The first witness is Brian Parker.
Mr Parker has given evidence that it was his decision to engage separate legal counsel from counsel for the CFMEU. He has been confronted with substantial documentation from various lawyers that paints the opposite picture - that it was the CFMEU and its advisors that made the decision. He states again that it was decision wholly and solely.
The Commissioner intervened to make the observation that Counsel for Mr Parker sought an extension last year on the time for submissions on his behalf. Counsel said that "it was in no way Mr Parker's fault" that separate legal counsel was engaged - it was entirely the decision of the CFMEU. Parker went a bit weak at the knees, stating that "I don't understand the law".
8 volumes of evidence has just been tendered - a huge amount of detail. The Commission has clearly been putting a lot of work!
Ms McNaughton has spent some considerable time quizzing Mr Parker about the composition of the CFMEU Branch Committee of Management. At one point Mr Parker started to say, "I can't recall" - he caught himself midway and swallowed the words.
The focus of the questions appears to be Darren Greenfield - who was on the BCOM as an employer representative from 2005. Mr Parker was quizzed as to how Mr Greenfield came to be a CFMEU organiser in 2010.
Mr Parker states that "I could have suggested Mr Greenfields' name". The BCOM minutes of the relevant meeting show that Mal Tulloch approached Mr Greenfield to make the offer.
The "can't recall" device wasn't absent for long - we just had 3 in a row.
Mr Parker claims that he's not sure to whom the CFMEU's Code of Conduct applies. Ms McNaughton hammers the point that he should have come to the Corruption and Governance Royal Commission well versed on the CFMEU's major policies. He claims that there's a large volume of documents within the CFMEU. This code of conduct relates to the receipt by CFMEU officials of gifts, benefits, building materials and the like. Mr Parker claims that "it's not for me to consistently tell them the union's policies".
Quote of the day so far from Mr Parker, "Inadvertent is still deliberate".
Mr Parker has been shown a draft response to a journalist in which Mr Parker states, "As secretary of the CFMEU I have a professional relationship with George Alex from Active Labour" - in a later draft the following words have been added, "I do not have a social relationship with Mr Alex and I have had no role in promoting him in relation to Barangaroo". Ms McNaughton has been reinforcing the absence of Darren Greenfield's name as a person with whom Mr Alex has a relationship.
Mr Parker may not know it, but he has just shot himself very badly in the foot. He's delivered a very detailed diatribe in concise and exquisite detail about the very positive job he thinks the CFMEU does in pursuing the wage entitlements of workers subsequent to the winding-up and re-establishment of phoenix building companies. He has referred to insurance, superannuation, wage, taxation and other detailed elements of the outstanding payments. This is in stark contrast to the "I can't recall" that his taxed and inefficient brain produced on Friday.
The difference between the passion and precision Mr Parker brings to his evidence in relation to the role of the union on-site is amazing - compared to his abject inability to remember a thing in relation to the CBUS leak.
St George is on to Mr Parker, here's his comment
St. George said:
Mr Parker's attention has been drawn to his previous evidence that he did not have a social relationship with George Alex. He's been shown intercepted text messages - one from George Alex to Mr Parker that includes the words "ur with us forever" and concludes with "xxx".
This 14 July 2011 telephone call is very luvvy duvvy.
All of a sudden Spakles Parker can "think of a 150 companies" he speaks to. Not bad for someone with no memory. .@mpsmithnews #turc
— RadiosOn (@electravision) June 18, 2015
George Alex, "I've just got the boys up here from Griffith".
Brian Parker has no idea who the "boys from Griffith are".
AT 1PM THE COMMISSION ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH
Bill SHORTEN, AWU National and Victorian State Secretary
MELBOURNE
10.00 AM, TUESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2002
False or misleading evidence
(1) A person shall not, at a hearing before a Commission, intentionally give evidence that the person knows to be false or misleading with respect to any matter, being a matter that is material to the inquiry being made by the Commission.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is an indictable offence and, subject to this section, is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years or by a fine not exceeding $20,000.
I'd appreciate some commentary from lawyers on this matter. Here's a link to the transcript of Shorten's evidence on that day.
Have you ever become aware, during the time you've been state secretary, of employers paying CFMEU tickets for their workforces without the workers concerned, being your members, signing application forms to join the CFMEU?---
I cannot think of a particular or specific employer that I could name who has done that. I think that's probably the most precise answer I can give to that question.
Let's bring it to your union. Has your union, during your time as secretary or as a full-time official, ever taken money from an employer without, at the same time, receiving application forms for membership?---
Not to my knowledge. I would just make one point about it, and it is not so much in construction: sometimes companies with payroll deduction, someone may leave - the company has a system and they will pay a weekly membership, and if you're interested, it's $6.20, but sometimes people will change jobs, some people will start in a business, some will leave. So we will, I guess, from time to time receive amounts of money for a name which we mightn't have yet fully processed the membership card, but I am not really sure that's what you are getting at.
No. What I am getting at is the situation where, as a result of a demand by your union on an employer whose workforce is CFMEU, or some other union, that they become members of your union, that the employer simply writes out a cheque to the AWU to cover that workforce and the AWU does not have, at that time, signed application forms for membership of any or all of those employees?---
No, I'm not aware of that in the construction industry, for our union.
Does your union have a policy on such a matter?---
I am not sure we have a policy, but our rules do require that I keep a register of members, and so what we do like to have is a name and a form for each person for whom we are receiving union dues. It is not an affirmative policy, it is sort of a practical auditing mechanism.
Presumably, your office staff have instructions from you as to how they are to respond in a situation where a cheque comes in from an employer, supposedly for the payment of union dues of a number of nominated persons, and it's necessary to establish whether those people have signed application forms to join the union. What instructions have you given to your office staff as to how to respond in such a situation?---
I am not sure I have ever given a specific instruction, but I do understand that if our office was ever to get a cheque or names where there weren't forms, what they would seek to do is contact the organiser for the site and reconcile it and work out who is this money for and whose membership account do we credit that to. I have no doubt that we have got that practice of lining up names, money and forms.
Are you aware of any circumstances in which cheques have come in in respect of named individuals who are not members of the union?---
So I understand the question, you're saying am I aware of cheques that have come in with names for people who are not members of the AWU?
Yes?---
No, I'm not, but I would say that if we got a cheque with some names, we would try and find the membership forms, because we would like to have them as members, I guess.
COMMISSIONER: I have been told from a number of people that it is not uncommon in the construction industry for an employer faced with a possible demarcation dispute between the AWU and the CFMEU to simply pay a sum the equivalent or the amount of union fees into the second union, whatever it may be, just so as to avoid industrial unrest?---
I guess two points to make, to see if I have understood your point, Commissioner. The first one is the AWU likes to have the names, the membership forms and the money, because we have to provide audited accounts to the industrial relations registrar every year under the act. The second point is I would be surprised if you had been told, and I'd welcome, if you have, to clarify - I beg your pardon. I would be very interested if you have been told that the AWU in Victoria has been receiving money, if you like, in lieu of union membership, an employer pays just to have industrial harmony with us. I do not believe that is our reputation.
I am not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that it is a sum equivalent to the membership application fees?---
Well, all the money we receive has to be for some reason.
It's de facto dual ticketing for the purpose of avoiding industrial unrest?---
All the money we receive has to be accounted for, it has to be for some reason. To receive money in lieu of membership is not a line we can put in our accounts and statements, so I do not believe that the AWU is receiving this sort of income in the manner which you described.
MR TRACEY: In the event that a cheque did come in in those circumstances, you've got a cheque that is supposedly attributable to the union dues of a nominated group of workers, what would your office staff do with that cheque if, having looked at the records, none of those people, or some of them, were found not to have ever signed application forms to join your union?---
Sometimes cheques which come in the mail - we get cheques in the mail - I guess, can get separated from the paperwork that they are with. When you're sorting all the cheques, we obviously focus on the cheques and the forms, but we certainly focus on banking the money we receive. I have got no doubt, in terms of a practical day-to-day issue, that we may well encounter situations where people may have a private company and the cheque is signed under that or it's a private cheque in the name of the wife of the construction worker. What we try and do is then - normally, most people will send some sort of invoice back or receipt. What our office staff will do, I imagine, is contact the sender of the cheque and say, "Sorry, we can't quite work out why you have sent this," but we don't maintain sort of a suspense account, where we put the money in and then we'll hopefully work out, at some point in the future, why we have got the money. We will endeavour to reconcile all membership dues with names.
So you pay the money into the account. If you subsequently discover that people haven't signed application forms, does the money get paid back?---
As I think I said earlier, I'm not aware of us ever receiving money for people who weren't members.
Redactedly-read-it-and-weep - entire report here - first couple of pages below - just in time for the TURC hearings into his mates George Alex and Brian Parker.
Here's his son.
The late Jim Collins was a co-signatory on Wilson's Melbourne bank accounts.
GILLARD said Collins organised her renovations:
Ms Gillard has told journalists she paid for the renovations. However, in a tape-recorded 1995 interview during an internal investigation by her then employer, law firm Slater & Gordon, she said she could not rule out whether union money or slush fund money went into the cottage, saying “but I can’t see how it’s happened’’.
She added that “a series of tradespeople came in and did the renovation’’ on the instructions of AWU organiser Jim Collins.
Here's the late Mr Collins's Affidavit after the dodgy redundancies Wilson (and his advisor) arranged.
Note this paragraph about Mr Collins's circumstances in 1997 - of all the companies, in all the industries that Jim Collins could have gone to work for - where did he end up?
The Australian Workers' Union National Construction Branch (AWU-NCB) was formed in March, 1995 - Bruce Wilson was appointed the Secretary and his legal advisor was Julia Gillard from Slater and Gordon.
The first Winslow Constructors Enterprise Agreement was finalised between the AWU-NCB and Winslow Constructors Pty Ltd in 1996. Wilson had been active in Victoria since 1993 as Victorian Branch Secretary, acquainting himself with employers in the construction caper with employees he could "sign on" as AWU members.
The second agreement the next year.
Wilson had been the driving force for the National Construction Branch - it petered out as a unit of the AWU some time later.
Dino Strano was the owner and managing director of Winslow Constructors since it opened for business. He states that he started dealing with the AWU in Victoria in the 1990s - because he didn't want to deal with the CFMEU. That was precisely Bruce Wilson's reason for the creation of a National Construction Branch of the AWU - to take members from the CFMEU.
Bill Shorten kept the AWU-NCB deals in place when he took the reins in Victoria. But the records show that the initial Winslow Enterprise Agreements were with Wilson's brainchild, the National Construction Branch. Wilson left the AWU in August, 1995 but it's his unit that inked the Winslow deal.
So Bill Shorten has no time for corruption? Looks like he's had years and years of it.
As has been the case in the AWU since Bruce Wilson was touted as a future PM, all roads lead to the capo di tutti capi.
As the AWU National Secretary said to the Prime Minister, "we've got your back"!